Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 11:41 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
On Belief in God X
#11
RE: On Belief in God X
(July 7, 2013 at 9:59 pm)Full Circle Wrote: Even worse than that. It is a poker game being played with an imaginary deck of cards, all five players claiming a royal flush after the imaginary deal and each calling the others a liar since the probability of a royal flush is so low AND none willing to show their imaginary winning hand.

...and they'll threaten to torture and murder anyone who demeans their royal flush, even though their royal flush is above such petty things because it's made of love and distilled happiness.

Or as they would put it, "Don't fuck with the Flush!!!"
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

-Stephen Jay Gould
Reply
#12
RE: On Belief in God X
(July 8, 2013 at 12:37 am)FallentoReason Wrote: How do we translate that to the real world? Open his brains up, wire it up to a tv, press play and experience what they experienced? That's the unfortunate problem.. just like we can't see other players' hands in a game of poker, we can't experience what someone else has experienced.

That's for him to figure out. He's the trying to win the pot using his supposed royal flush.

So, I'm in this poker game where the other five players are all claiming to have a royal flush but none of them can show his hand. Well, I happen to have a three of a kind, but based on probability and the sheer impossibility, I'd say that all of them are lying. So I go all in and call. If a single one of them is right and shows his hand, he'll get the pot. But if all of them keep insisting that they have the royal flush, but can't show their hands and I just need to have faith - well, screw them. I'm taking the pot.

(July 8, 2013 at 12:37 am)FallentoReason Wrote: In the real world, they *can't* show their "hand". The best they can do is describe to you what that "hand" looks like.

Not good enough. To win, they need to show their hand or shut up.

(July 8, 2013 at 12:37 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I think this is actually the only route that would yield better results. Maybe they need an explanation of *what* a royal flush is! Something or other would do the job of undermining their experiential justification and render it trivial, useless, a delusion in such a way that they would undergo internal reflection between their updated metaphysics of a royal flush and what they percieve(d) and see that there's conflict.

If they don't know what royal flush is or if they are redefining it in a way contrary to the rules of poker, then they have no business playing the in the first place. The rules of a rational debate and of poker have already been established. You try to change them mid-way through, you get kicked out.

(July 8, 2013 at 9:47 am)FallentoReason Wrote: "I know I have a royal flush because I can seeeee my hand".

Who has more authority to comment on that? The players around the table or the guy holding the hand?

There doesn't need to be an authority - that's the point. Even if he does have a royal flush, we still don't need to take his word for it. In fact, most of the time, we wouldn't take his word for it.
Reply
#13
RE: On Belief in God X
(July 8, 2013 at 12:57 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(July 8, 2013 at 12:37 am)FallentoReason Wrote: How do we translate that to the real world? Open his brains up, wire it up to a tv, press play and experience what they experienced? That's the unfortunate problem.. just like we can't see other players' hands in a game of poker, we can't experience what someone else has experienced.

[1]
That's for him to figure out. He's the trying to win the pot using his supposed royal flush.

So, I'm in this poker game where the other five players are all claiming to have a royal flush but none of them can show his hand. Well, I happen to have a three of a kind, but based on probability and the sheer impossibility, I'd say that all of them are lying. So I go all in and call. If a single one of them is right and shows his hand, he'll get the pot. But if all of them keep insisting that they have the royal flush, but can't show their hands and I just need to have faith - well, screw them. I'm taking the pot.


(July 8, 2013 at 12:37 am)FallentoReason Wrote: In the real world, they *can't* show their "hand". The best they can do is describe to you what that "hand" looks like.

[1]
Not good enough. To win, they need to show their hand or shut up.

(July 8, 2013 at 12:37 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I think this is actually the only route that would yield better results. Maybe they need an explanation of *what* a royal flush is! Something or other would do the job of undermining their experiential justification and render it trivial, useless, a delusion in such a way that they would undergo internal reflection between their updated metaphysics of a royal flush and what they percieve(d) and see that there's conflict.

[2]
If they don't know what royal flush is or if they are redefining it in a way contrary to the rules of poker, then they have no business playing the in the first place. The rules of a rational debate and of poker have already been established. You try to change them mid-way through, you get kicked out.

(July 8, 2013 at 9:47 am)FallentoReason Wrote: "I know I have a royal flush because I can seeeee my hand".

Who has more authority to comment on that? The players around the table or the guy holding the hand?

[3]
There doesn't need to be an authority - that's the point. Even if he does have a royal flush, we still don't need to take his word for it. In fact, most of the time, we wouldn't take his word for it.

I've put the numbers in bold in your post as a way to show what I'm responding to in my post. I felt like we were beginning to get sidetracked, so I kind of re-iterated my thoughts as a way to get myself across better, and therefore the numbers are there to show how my post relates to yours.

[1]
The poker analogy can only take us so far; in reality our "hand" cannot be shown. I can't translate my experience of how bored I was watching the first Lord of the Rings movie in such a way that your experience of it will be synonymous with mine. In fact, it won't even *be* an experience, but simply my description of my experience which I am telling you... that's my point exactly - there's no way of transferring this quale from me to you. The closest we can ever get is my description of this quale which I am telling you about.

If we agree on that much, then it follows that we have to use other means to determine what the person's hand really is.[2] But firstly, let's consider two different situations which I think effectively reflect the subject matter of religious belief:

1) The person claims to have a royal flush, but their concept of a royal flush is flawed. They are in fact holding anything *but* a royal flush. But since they don't know any better, their claim, as far as they're concerned, reflects their hand.
2) They do in fact have a royal flush and they know exactly what a royal flush consists of.

[3]
Since the others sitting around the table won't *ever* know what it's like to be staring at that hand, they need to try a different strategy for deducing the truth about that hand.

The point I'm hoping to make in this thread is that maybe we need to think of these other strategies, because the current strategy of sitting back and waiting to be given the impossible simply isn't working. The theist understandably gets irritated at the impossible task while the atheist jumps to the conclusion that since nothing was produced, the theist is wrong. [3]Then I can just picture the theist looking down at his hand and rightfully saying to himself "but what I have seen is this!". Both parties can walk away at this point, but the issue at hand wasn't ever touched upon.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Reply
#14
RE: On Belief in God X
(July 8, 2013 at 9:47 am)FallentoReason Wrote:
(July 8, 2013 at 8:12 am)bennyboy Wrote: It's not a proof. However, it debunks the idea that the feelings a person has about his religion constitute proof. "I know Jesus is real because I can feeeeeel him in my heart." "I know Boobledyboo is real because I can feeeeeel him in my heart."

"I know I have a royal flush because I can seeeee my hand".

Who has more authority to comment on that? The players around the table or the guy holding the hand?

Then let them show their cards. We call.
Reply
#15
RE: On Belief in God X
(July 8, 2013 at 9:09 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
(July 8, 2013 at 9:47 am)FallentoReason Wrote: "I know I have a royal flush because I can seeeee my hand".

Who has more authority to comment on that? The players around the table or the guy holding the hand?

Then let them show their cards. We call.

But how?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Reply
#16
RE: On Belief in God X
(July 8, 2013 at 9:01 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: The poker analogy can only take us so far; in reality our "hand" cannot be shown. I can't translate my experience of how bored I was watching the first Lord of the Rings movie in such a way that your experience of it will be synonymous with mine. In fact, it won't even *be* an experience, but simply my description of my experience which I am telling you... that's my point exactly - there's no way of transferring this quale from me to you. The closest we can ever get is my description of this quale which I am telling you about.

If we agree on that much, then it follows that we have to use other means to determine what the person's hand really is.

Why would you start with the assumption that the hand cannot be shown? In the poker analogy, the royal flush, if there is one, is the cause of the experience and it produces the same experience in everyone at the table. Why would you start by assuming that god can only be experienced by select few. If it exists, then everyone should be able to experience it.

(July 8, 2013 at 9:01 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: But firstly, let's consider two different situations which I think effectively reflect the subject matter of religious belief:

1) The person claims to have a royal flush, but their concept of a royal flush is flawed. They are in fact holding anything *but* a royal flush. But since they don't know any better, their claim, as far as they're concerned, reflects their hand.
2) They do in fact have a royal flush and they know exactly what a royal flush consists of.

Since the others sitting around the table won't *ever* know what it's like to be staring at that hand, they need to try a different strategy for deducing the truth about that hand.

The point I'm hoping to make in this thread is that maybe we need to think of these other strategies, because the current strategy of sitting back and waiting to be given the impossible simply isn't working. The theist understandably gets irritated at the impossible task while the atheist jumps to the conclusion that since nothing was produced, the theist is wrong.

In the first case, we don't need to share the experience - a description of it would sufficient to disenchant the deluded fool.

You might want to revise the second case because you seem to be assuming that god exists and that the person is actually experiencing him.

Anyway, without assuming that he does or doesn't have the royal flush - there are many other ways of determining it. We check to see is all the kings are accounted for in the deck of cards and with other players. We consider previous claims of having the royal flush which turned out to be a lie. And yet, all the theist does is keep repeating that he has a royal flush - without attempting to show the cards. The answer to your question is, there isn't going to be a solution until the theist finds a way to show his hand. Only that can settle the matter once and for all.

(July 8, 2013 at 9:01 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Then I can just picture the theist looking down at his hand and rightfully saying to himself "but what I have seen is this!". Both parties can walk away at this point, but the issue at hand wasn't ever touched upon.

Yes, but the important thing is - the atheist gets the pot.
Reply
#17
RE: On Belief in God X
(July 8, 2013 at 9:55 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(July 8, 2013 at 9:01 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: The poker analogy can only take us so far; in reality our "hand" cannot be shown. I can't translate my experience of how bored I was watching the first Lord of the Rings movie in such a way that your experience of it will be synonymous with mine. In fact, it won't even *be* an experience, but simply my description of my experience which I am telling you... that's my point exactly - there's no way of transferring this quale from me to you. The closest we can ever get is my description of this quale which I am telling you about.

If we agree on that much, then it follows that we have to use other means to determine what the person's hand really is.

Why would you start with the assumption that the hand cannot be shown? In the poker analogy, the royal flush, if there is one, is the cause of the experience and it produces the same experience in everyone at the table. Why would you start by assuming that god can only be experienced by select few. If it exists, then everyone should be able to experience it.

Now you're conflating two different things. I never said God can only be experienced by a select few. I do think that it's right to assume the hand can't be shown though:

Let's call the royal flush my experience of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I look down at my hand, and what follows is that I think it's extremely boring. That's *my* experience of this hand. How exactly do I *SHOW* you my hand, such that your experience will be *synonymous* with mine? I can't. That's the crux of the OP, that what the theist "holds" is purely *theirs* and a private matter by nature.

Quote:
(July 8, 2013 at 9:01 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: But firstly, let's consider two different situations which I think effectively reflect the subject matter of religious belief:

1) The person claims to have a royal flush, but their concept of a royal flush is flawed. They are in fact holding anything *but* a royal flush. But since they don't know any better, their claim, as far as they're concerned, reflects their hand.
2) They do in fact have a royal flush and they know exactly what a royal flush consists of.

Since the others sitting around the table won't *ever* know what it's like to be staring at that hand, they need to try a different strategy for deducing the truth about that hand.

The point I'm hoping to make in this thread is that maybe we need to think of these other strategies, because the current strategy of sitting back and waiting to be given the impossible simply isn't working. The theist understandably gets irritated at the impossible task while the atheist jumps to the conclusion that since nothing was produced, the theist is wrong.

In the first case, we don't need to share the experience - a description of it would sufficient to disenchant the deluded fool.

And what happens if magically we could transfer his experience on to you and suddenly you confirm the royal flush? That's the other underlying point here - that no matter how crazy something sounds, they *could* have a valid experiential justification for said crazy claim.

Quote:You might want to revise the second case because you seem to be assuming that god exists and that the person is actually experiencing him.

...?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ~ Aristotle

Nuff said.

Quote:Anyway, without assuming that he does or doesn't have the royal flush - there are many other ways of determining it. We check to see is all the kings are accounted for in the deck of cards and with other players.

Yes! That's the idea. I mean, I don't know what those suggestions would translate to in the real world, but the point is that the atheist should be trying different arguments to settle the fact that they can't possibly be experiencing a royal flush.

Quote: We consider previous claims of having the royal flush which turned out to be a lie.

If this claim is dependent on previous claims, then surely that implies previous claims also depended on the ones before them. How did we consider the very first claim then? Better yet, let's say this *is* the first claim.

What now?

Quote:And yet, all the theist does is keep repeating that he has a royal flush - without attempting to show the cards.

Because in the real world, they simply *can't* show their "hand".

Quote:The answer to your question is, there isn't going to be a solution until the theist finds a way to show his hand. Only that can settle the matter once and for all.

No, what I think is that the atheist needs to be a little more pro active and realise that the experience can be undermined in a different way. They would have to try a line of argumentation that would lead to the conclusion "...and that's why you couldn't possibly have experienced God" because if the experience is undermined such that "God" wasn't responsible for it, then the floodgates open for the theist to fill in the blank with anything *but* God.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Reply
#18
RE: On Belief in God X
(July 9, 2013 at 12:08 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Now you're conflating two different things. I never said God can only be experienced by a select few. I do think that it's right to assume the hand can't be shown though:

Let's call the royal flush my experience of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I look down at my hand, and what follows is that I think it's extremely boring. That's *my* experience of this hand. How exactly do I *SHOW* you my hand, such that your experience will be *synonymous* with mine? I can't. That's the crux of the OP, that what the theist "holds" is purely *theirs* and a private matter by nature.

Either you are being confusing or you are confused - but I don't think you are expressing yourself properly.

Look at it this way. There can be two components of an experience - objective and subjective. The objective one depends upon the nature of object being experienced - its form, physical qualities etc. and the subjective component would be your feelings and emotions related to it. So, when you see a royal flush, the objective part of the experience would be seeing five high cards and the subjective part would be feeling giddy at the expectation of victory. Similarly, while watching LOTR, the objective part would be seeing and listening to everything and the subjective part would be, for you, being extremely bored.

Now, I'm no longer sure what the royal flush represents anymore, so let's do away with the middleman. If you compare your experience of watching LOTR with a theist's experience of god - it would be true that there is a part of your experience that you'd never be able to share. The subjective part of their experience would always be purely theirs - a private matter. But the objective part of the experience can be shared - IF this god is an objective entity.

Compare this to another movie that you saw in a dream last night. Basically, you dreamt that you were in a theatre, watching a movie called "rise of the boobie monster" and you enjoyed it. This experience would be completely a private matter - since I can't share in the objective part (since it was your dream) or the subjective part.

This is the issue with the OP. If this god is an objective entity, then atleast a part of that experience can be shared. The only reason this won't be possible is if this entity is in the theist's head, thus making the experience completely private. Basically, if he actually holds the royal flush, he'd be able to show his hand and the only reason he can't show his hand is because he doesn't have the royal flush.

(July 9, 2013 at 12:08 am)FallentoReason Wrote: And what happens if magically we could transfer his experience on to you and suddenly you confirm the royal flush? That's the other underlying point here - that no matter how crazy something sounds, they *could* have a valid experiential justification for said crazy claim.

That is why we don't consider experiential justification to have any great validity to begin with.


(July 9, 2013 at 12:08 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Yes! That's the idea. I mean, I don't know what those suggestions would translate to in the real world, but the point is that the atheist should be trying different arguments to settle the fact that they can't possibly be experiencing a royal flush.

But we do try - or haven't you been paying attention? We see that the same experience is replicated in others with completely different gods - thus establishing that a royal flush seems to provide the same experience as a straight flush. We see the necessary implications of having a royal flush - certain cards being missing from the deck (of the necessary implications of the god they experienced - like absence of suffering) and check them out one by one - not true, not true and so on. I'd say that we do a lot to check if they have a royal flush when we had no reason to believe them in the first place.

(July 9, 2013 at 12:08 am)FallentoReason Wrote: If this claim is dependent on previous claims, then surely that implies previous claims also depended on the ones before them. How did we consider the very first claim then? Better yet, let's say this *is* the first claim.

What now?

That would be unnecessary. The first claim of royal flush would be the first claim of "experiencing god". And we got completely and totally fooled that time. We bought it, hook, line and sinker. In fact, we got fooled a few thousand times after that as well and lost a lot of pots to that. Now, we are smarter.


(July 9, 2013 at 12:08 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Because in the real world, they simply *can't* show their "hand".

As I said, if the flush is real, they should be able to.

(July 9, 2013 at 12:08 am)FallentoReason Wrote: No, what I think is that the atheist needs to be a little more pro active and realise that the experience can be undermined in a different way. They would have to try a line of argumentation that would lead to the conclusion "...and that's why you couldn't possibly have experienced God" because if the experience is undermined such that "God" wasn't responsible for it, then the floodgates open for the theist to fill in the blank with anything *but* God.

You are crediting the theist with too much rationality. The only way you'll convince them they couldn't possibly have experienced god would be by first proving that there is no god. Try giving any explanation - that the experience was caused by hormones - god stimulated the glands. It was caused by force particles - god is a jedi. And you won't convince them that there is no god because they'll keep saying "but I experienced him".
Reply
#19
RE: On Belief in God X
You're sort of missing the pount. As already pointed out, the actual purpose isn't to claim improbability of their religious views being correct, but to demonstrate that they're being inconsistent - and arriving no where - by claiming that their theological and soteriological views are thereby correct because of some particular experience, when it can be - and has been - claimed by believers of EVERY religion, and EVERY denomination of every religion.

In other words, if you accept the basicality of religious experience as a confirmation of said beliefs, you arrive at a contradiction and inconsistency, since said experience can be claimed by anyone just a validly and lead to mutually exclusive beliefs being true, such as there both being only one God and there being multiple gods being simultaneously true.
"The reason things will never get better is because people keep electing these rich cocksuckers who don't give a shit about you."
-George Carlin
Reply
#20
RE: On Belief in God X
(July 9, 2013 at 12:08 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Because in the real world, they simply *can't* show their "hand".

Oh, they absolutely could. They won't. And there is a perfectly rational explanation as to why: their 'royal flush' is virtually certain to be nothing any other player would recognize as such. They have only two options.

1: Lay down a hand more suited to the strength of any theist claim, such as K♥ J♥ 8♣ 7♦ 4♠, and insist that it doesn't appear to be a royal flush to the other players because they aren't interpreting poker hands according to what they believe is correct (i.e., you aren't interpreting it so that they win every hand), or
2: Never show their hand because, as long as they don't show, the game cannot continue and nobody can prove they don't have a royal flush.

It is giving theists far too much credit to suggest that they are incapable of showing their hands. If that's the case, they aren't actually holding any cards and should not be treated as though they are legitimate participants in the game.

If you do not have evidence which exists outside of your head, you can only lose or draw.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Belief without Verification or Certainty vulcanlogician 40 3241 May 11, 2022 at 4:50 pm
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  [Serious] Questions about Belief and Personal Identity Neo-Scholastic 27 1703 June 11, 2021 at 8:28 pm
Last Post: arewethereyet
  Is Belief in God ethical? vulcanlogician 28 2521 November 1, 2018 at 4:10 pm
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  William James and Belief In Belief Mudhammam 0 617 November 2, 2016 at 7:13 pm
Last Post: Mudhammam
  Knowledge and belief in God Harris 37 4443 April 29, 2016 at 8:00 am
Last Post: paulpablo
  Test my belief system robvalue 84 12130 September 8, 2015 at 10:41 am
Last Post: Sappho
  The Ethics of Belief Pyrrho 32 7577 July 25, 2015 at 2:27 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  My View on Belief vs. Knowledge GrandizerII 29 7250 March 4, 2015 at 7:12 pm
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  Belief and Knowledge Heywood 150 14853 November 9, 2014 at 8:24 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  Belief and Certainty FreeTony 6 1785 September 4, 2014 at 10:06 pm
Last Post: Jenny A



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)