(April 8, 2013 at 5:27 pm)Darkstar Wrote:(April 8, 2013 at 5:17 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Objective morality is a delusion. Concept of free-will is a delusion. Concept of value is a delusion. Concept of praiseworthiness is a delusion. If you can't prove they are true and based on reality, then you are not justified in believing in any of these or demanding justification from those who deny it or don't believe in any of them.Bolding mine.
Does that sound logical?
Whether God exists or not, it seems most humanity is inclined to the sacred and holiness and have a belief in existence of such things, even it came in the form of different gods, etc...
I don't think it's very easy to dismiss simply on the "burden of proof is on you, if you can't prove it, I don't need to justify why I don't believe in it or why I deny it."
There is a difference between proving the mere existence of a being, and proving the validity of a concept. A very big one at that.
If free-will was just a concept, and had no reality behind it, it would be a delusion. The same is true of the rest of the properties. In fact, I would say these things are properties of essence. But naturalism wise, since the self is a concept generated by the brain with no reference to a real soul, there is no essence. Hence naturalism wise, it is a delusion. It's merely a concept, like the self, which too would be a delusion.
"Who recognizes himself, recognizes his Lord" - hadith.
There is no real difference in the analogy. The analogy was to say, it's part of the human experience to believe in holiness, sacred, and supernatural, just like it is to believe in morals, free-will, identity.
In fact, holiness is subsect of praise. Easy to dismiss the praise you don't believe in.
The analogy is not weakened at all by that difference.
