RE: On Belief in God X
July 14, 2013 at 9:55 am
(This post was last modified: July 14, 2013 at 9:57 am by FallentoReason.)
(July 14, 2013 at 9:17 am)genkaus Wrote:(July 14, 2013 at 8:45 am)FallentoReason Wrote: If we're strictly linking it back to the OP now, then the above fails to establish anything against the OP. The circumstance I set up in the OP was that, whether true or false, the believer claims they have experiential justification for their belief, just like someone who got dealt a royal flush has the ongoing experiential justification before their eyes, just like the original krakener who, according to your story, has experiential justification for the claim that they have seen such a beast. So to say"the improbability of the royal flush[/god/the kraken] is given as a starting point for better evaluation" is *exactly* what I'm suggesting shouldn't be done. Alternate routes need to be found which undermine the very concept of a royal flush/god/the kraken, which then undeniably leads to the conclusion that experiential instances are impossible.
And here I thought we were finally coming to an agreement. Well, if you don't think "improbability" is a good enough argument to start a discussion with, then you don't. Arguably, there could be both better and worse arguments to be made. Still, here's how I think the conversation would go.
I don't know if you're picking up on the subtleties here, or if you outright disagree with these subtleties, but the royal flush scenario highlights the irrelevance of probabilities. Think of this alternate scenario: I deal 5 cards to you. You turn them over and see cards p, q, r, s and t. The chances of that ever happening were going to be some ridiculously small number, yet you sit there with the experiential justification that rightly allows you to claim you indeed have been dealt cards p, q, r, s and t, regardless of the maths.
When it comes to the reality of religious claims, we can't make the assumptions that you've ran with here:
Quote:
because (and this is up for debate) I think the royal flush scenario *by nature* puts the royal flush holder in a position where they have a "one up". Why? Well, because properly basic beliefs are a damn strong reason to hold on to said beliefs. Would you ever accept that you need to question I dealt you cards p, q, r, s and t when they're sitting right in front of you? Do we need to acknowledge Descartes' demon has been sitting at the table this whole time? No, I think we can assume that what you see is what you see, regardless of improbability or deep skepticism of the senses. As the nature of the scenario implies, no one actually has impaired senses.
In light of this, that's why it's actually irrational to ask the royal flush holder to check again, to see if they really have a royal flush. I could ask you the same thing with cards p, q, r, s and t, and it would go something like this:
Me: so you really have those cards, despite the odds?
You: yes.
Me: are you sure? The odds suggest you should check again. Do you really have those cards?
You: yes.
Me: ok, but just to make sure, could you check one final time?
You: ok... *looks down, and back up again* *sigh* yeees!
Let's bring this back to the real world:
Atheist: you are deluded. You didn't experience God.
Theist: I am sure of it. It was *undeniable* (appeal to their properly basic belief).
Atheist: you need to be rational. It's highly unlikely that it was a genuine experience.
Theist: I know what I felt/heard/saw (appeal to their experiential justification of said belief).
Atheist: there are a myriad of other explanations.
Theist: ...I know what I felt/heard/saw!!!!
Basically, I think properly basic beliefs are something we can't deny to ourselves. I dealt you cards p, q, r, s and t, and as a result, you have an inescapable belief that that is in fact so - that I dealt you cards p...t. Therefore, to allow such beliefs to be "sound" in everyday living, such as giving testimony about something relatively trivial you saw to a friend, and not have to ask to "check your hand again", surely means that the same should go for a theist who felt/heard/saw something x years ago which made them think differently about the world. Unless of course one has a strong bias against that particular brand of properly basic belief for some unknown reason. Then maybe you should stay consistent and question the entirety of what you experience and ask if there really is an external world beyond the Self. If you don't have reason to do that, then neither does the theist for their subset of alleged experiences. If so, then your only logical alternative is to grant them that experiential justification, but find *different* means to show them that justification actually needs to be discarded.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
