RE: Why I'm not an Atheist and believe in what I believe.
June 9, 2012 at 6:55 am
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2012 at 7:07 am by Tempus.)
HO HO HO, PAPA BEAR IS BACK. SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP.
Right, now let's get this circus on the road!
If #1 is true, you'd still have your work cut out to make a logical argument that it's possible to know god intuitively. A logical conclusion is reached by a logical argument, which must be both sound and valid to justify said conclusion. Logical arguments can be false though if, for example, they don't take into account relevant information. In such cases it could be because this information constitutes an "unknown unknown" - i.e., a necessary variable which is not only unaccounted for, but it's very existence is outside the scope of current knowledge. Logical arguments are used to determine how justified we are in believing things and aid in discovering new things, but they don't necessarily adhere to reality. I think what I've said here is right, someone correct me if I'm wrong!
For a logical argument about a god to begin to take form we would need some premises which were true to create an argument from; something like "a god exists", for example. If a god exists but we don't know about it we can't make logical arguments about it. I know you're not Christian, but I'll use an example with the Christian god below:
1) God exists.
2) This god dictated its will in the Bible.
3) The Bible says we can know and develop a relationship with God via means other than traditional forms of communication (such as writing, speaking, etc).
4) Therefore we can know God via [prayer, intuition, whatever].
The point I'm illustrating here is that you'd need to actually establish a god exists prior to making any logical conclusions about its methods of communications. Other requisite premises might include "this god is interested in communication with humans."
I actually take issue with your dichotomy. I think you adopt to narrow a view like Pascal with his wager. To me it's not quite as simple as either a god exists or it doesn't. What about gods?
1) God A exists.
2) God B exists.
3) God C exists.
4) God D exists.
etc, etc
5) Set of gods X exist (e.g. Norse, Greek, Aztec gods, etc).
6) Set of gods Y exist.
7) Set of gods Z exist.
etc, etc
8) No gods exist.
Firstly, I don't know if it's a delusion. According to the first line of Wikipedia's article on delusion (I'm too lazy to read further): "A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary." While I don't think there's any reason to believe in a god or gods, I personally wouldn't say there's "superior evidence to the contrary", nor that you have a "strong conviction" since you're actually examining your beliefs. I think you've used poor reasoning to reach your conclusion. I don't think you're deluded. The reason I don't believe in gods is because I have no reason to. While it's true sometimes I feel bad when I see suffering, this isn't always the case and there have been times in my life where I've actually enjoyed inflicting suffering upon others (should I have listened to all the feelings inside me telling me to hurt that person?), or when I've thought someone betrayed me when they didn't (false intuition). I often find myself restraining my instincts and intuition (I'm not saying they're the same by the way) rather than following them.
The best way to avoid believing falsehoods is to stop believing things without justification and/or evidence. For some people this means a fundamental change in their worldview, especially if they're assuming the existence of gods, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, etc. I'd recommend familiarising yourself with good reasoning and logical fallacies as well as cognitive biases and psychology as it relates to such beliefs.
Right, now let's get this circus on the road!
(June 8, 2012 at 10:49 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Ok let's discuss the following two possibilties:
1) God exists.
2) God doesn't exist.
If 1) is true, do you think it's logically possible that God makes us perceive him and know of him intuitively or in properly basic knowledge manner?
If #1 is true, you'd still have your work cut out to make a logical argument that it's possible to know god intuitively. A logical conclusion is reached by a logical argument, which must be both sound and valid to justify said conclusion. Logical arguments can be false though if, for example, they don't take into account relevant information. In such cases it could be because this information constitutes an "unknown unknown" - i.e., a necessary variable which is not only unaccounted for, but it's very existence is outside the scope of current knowledge. Logical arguments are used to determine how justified we are in believing things and aid in discovering new things, but they don't necessarily adhere to reality. I think what I've said here is right, someone correct me if I'm wrong!
For a logical argument about a god to begin to take form we would need some premises which were true to create an argument from; something like "a god exists", for example. If a god exists but we don't know about it we can't make logical arguments about it. I know you're not Christian, but I'll use an example with the Christian god below:
1) God exists.
2) This god dictated its will in the Bible.
3) The Bible says we can know and develop a relationship with God via means other than traditional forms of communication (such as writing, speaking, etc).
4) Therefore we can know God via [prayer, intuition, whatever].
The point I'm illustrating here is that you'd need to actually establish a god exists prior to making any logical conclusions about its methods of communications. Other requisite premises might include "this god is interested in communication with humans."
I actually take issue with your dichotomy. I think you adopt to narrow a view like Pascal with his wager. To me it's not quite as simple as either a god exists or it doesn't. What about gods?
1) God A exists.
2) God B exists.
3) God C exists.
4) God D exists.
etc, etc
5) Set of gods X exist (e.g. Norse, Greek, Aztec gods, etc).
6) Set of gods Y exist.
7) Set of gods Z exist.
etc, etc
8) No gods exist.
(June 8, 2012 at 10:49 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: If 2) is true, what is the basis of the delusion and how do I get out of it?
Firstly, I don't know if it's a delusion. According to the first line of Wikipedia's article on delusion (I'm too lazy to read further): "A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary." While I don't think there's any reason to believe in a god or gods, I personally wouldn't say there's "superior evidence to the contrary", nor that you have a "strong conviction" since you're actually examining your beliefs. I think you've used poor reasoning to reach your conclusion. I don't think you're deluded. The reason I don't believe in gods is because I have no reason to. While it's true sometimes I feel bad when I see suffering, this isn't always the case and there have been times in my life where I've actually enjoyed inflicting suffering upon others (should I have listened to all the feelings inside me telling me to hurt that person?), or when I've thought someone betrayed me when they didn't (false intuition). I often find myself restraining my instincts and intuition (I'm not saying they're the same by the way) rather than following them.
The best way to avoid believing falsehoods is to stop believing things without justification and/or evidence. For some people this means a fundamental change in their worldview, especially if they're assuming the existence of gods, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, etc. I'd recommend familiarising yourself with good reasoning and logical fallacies as well as cognitive biases and psychology as it relates to such beliefs.
