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!
November 18, 2013 at 5:53 pm (This post was last modified: November 18, 2013 at 5:54 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(November 18, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: How does someone with a broken "God antenna" know that their minority world view isn't the deluded state?
Yes, think about it, fire up you one brain cell. What would reduce the chance of a view being delusional?
Come on, think, even if you can't think, just trying to think would make you better than the christian that you are now.
(November 18, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: How does someone with a broken "God antenna" know that their minority world view isn't the deluded state?
I know this is asking a lot out of you, but would you mind showing me a map of human anatomy with the "God antenna" clearly identified?
Only men have a god antenna, as the bible clearly states that they are closer to god than women.
On some men the "god antenna" is particularly noticable when they're aroused . . . by religion, of course.
(November 18, 2013 at 5:26 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote:
(November 18, 2013 at 5:05 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: You could be undergoing an extremely potent hallucination, after all.
This is true, and while I can only speak about personal experiences of such things. There is a state of awareness during hallucinations that lends to one recognizing that things are different than "normal". Even in the state of experiencing a hallucination, and especially after, rationality can be applied. It is the ability to reason with the phenomenon in question that allows one to arrive at it being a "hallucination", or an inaccurate representation of reality.
When reason is chucked out the window, it is not perceived as a hallucination, it IS REALITY to the one attempting to make sense of the experience. This is somewhat the crux of religion and its associated claims. It's the line between fantasy and reality; Theism Vs. Atheism. IMO
(November 18, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: How does someone with a broken "God antenna" know that their minority world view isn't the deluded state?
Did you watch the video? It may be helpful if you make an argument against some of the things being said in it. It's only 6 minutes or so. Surely you have the time.
Secondly,
How do you know that God doesn't merely exist only in the heads of people that think there is a "God Antenna" extending from them?
I'm not saying that God doesn't exist. I believe he does. He's in your head. I also believe that he's as subjectively real to you as your favorite food. But, how do you know it's anything more than that? Surely you must have evidence for such an objective claim. No?
(November 18, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: How does someone with a broken "God antenna" know that their minority world view isn't the deluded state?
Again, I'm open to the idea that there's a God. I'm genuinely willing to revise my stance on God and adopt the one that you have. But if you think that it's a reasonable position, you have to provide evidence for it.
A lot of people thinking something is true, doesn't make it true. Do you really not understand that?
Your same question could be directed at you toward Allah, and yet, you are not convinced. Why do you think that is?
Sorry, I didn't know I had to watch the video in order to take part in the thread.
I guess that means you wasted your time responding to my post.
Oh well. Bye.
November 18, 2013 at 6:13 pm (This post was last modified: November 18, 2013 at 6:14 pm by The Reality Salesman01.)
Avoiding potentially devastating blows to your views and favoring those designed to reinforce them is your mind working against you. It's confirmation bias, and it's a sign that the belief your mind is trying to safeguard, is a delusion.
It's not the devil, it's your brain. It's not as evil as you think. Of course, you have to be willing to revise your views before you can be open to the idea that they may be wrong.
(November 18, 2013 at 5:14 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote:
(November 18, 2013 at 5:05 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Strictly speaking, "How do you know you're not delusional?" can only be responded to with an assumption by anyone. If you were delusional, you might not know it. You could be undergoing an extremely potent hallucination, after all.
I disagree. I think that by being willing to revise one's beliefs in the face of new evidence, and being aware of personal biases that may blind one's ability to change are good ways of knowing if a belief is a delusion or not. That is, if a belief doesn't accurately represent reality.
That's the difference between being delusional and misconstruing reality. A religious nut would not change their belief under any circumstances. There is nothing that would cause them to revise it unless the signs that point to self deception are too much to ignore. I think it depends with how long it's been apart of their psyche, and whether or not they are surrounded by those that reinforce the concepts by using the same faulty circular logic.
I am not delusional because I'm not married to any belief that I have. I am willing to revise them, and that is something that no Christian can say.
That's not to say they can't revise them, but in the state in which they defend them, that's not an alternative they're able to consider. It's a belief blinded by confirmation bias that is immune to criticism or revision.
MindForgedManacle is completely right; your objection can be raised against anyone’s view of reality. It’s taken several forms in the history of philosophy such as Descartes' Demon and the Brain in the Vat. You claim that you are immune to such an objection because you are willing to alter your beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. What about your belief that your senses accurately perceive reality? Or your belief that the exterior Universe is knowable? If you were delusional or being deceived then you cannot demonstrate that these two claims are indeed true without invoking circularity (these two beliefs do make more sense in light of theism however). It is an interesting subject to ponder, but as far as the debate on theism it is irrelevant.
November 18, 2013 at 7:27 pm (This post was last modified: November 18, 2013 at 7:50 pm by The Reality Salesman01.)
(November 18, 2013 at 7:07 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: MindForgedManacle is completely right; your objection can be raised against anyone’s view of reality. It’s taken several forms in the history of philosophy such as Descartes' Demon and the Brain in the Vat. You claim that you are immune to such an objection because you are willing to alter your beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. What about your belief that your senses accurately perceive reality? Or your belief that the exterior Universe is knowable? If you were delusional or being deceived then you cannot demonstrate that these two claims are indeed true without invoking circularity (these two beliefs do make more sense in light of theism however). It is an interesting subject to ponder, but as far as the debate on theism it is irrelevant.
I am willing to revise anything that I hold as true, if the evidence can show otherwise. We are not talking about debating the reliability of our senses. We are not talking about whether or not I, personally, can trust that when I am looking at a rock, it is in fact a rock (well, a little we are).
I can certainly understand why you would want to take the conversation in that direction, because if you feel that you've undermined reality and all objectivity, then suddenly there is no conversation worth having. If a belief in God requires rejecting every human faculty of experience as a means of its defense, then by all means, carry on. But I will not participate.
I'm willing to bet that's not what you aim to do. I think we can both agree on a few things that would be necessary to have a conversation like this.
I think you will concede that we both can see, touch, and hear things. Some of the things we feel can be verified, while others cannot.
I think you are able to recognize the difference between Objectivity and Subjectivity, and I'm willing to bet that you recognize the relevance that such words would have in a conversation of this sort.
I think you will concede that there are things in the exterior universe, some of which are knowable, while others are not.
Are we going to be able to have a conversation about something real, or is it going to be derailed by a devil's advocate defending a sort of Pyrrhonism in order to avoid an honest exchange of ideas? I personally think that would be a waste of time, and I would really not like to have a conversation intended for students during their first week of philosophy. Can we skip the brain in a vat, and find common ground, or do we continue under the pretense that nothing can really be known and conversations are useless?
I'll leave it up to you.
In short,
We are talking about beliefs that are either accurate depictions of reality, or they are not.
This conversation is contingent upon us already establishing that we share the same faculties for discerning such things, and in fact, such faculties are required to do so to discern anything at all. Let's not waste time by starting where Descartes began. What would be the point of reading philosophy if every time we wanted to have a philosophical conversation we had to start from the very beginning?
Can you recognize a standard by which we determine reality from fantasy? Or am I a pumpkin if it seems real to me that I am a pumpkin?
If I am not a pumpkin, how is it that we establish that I am not without some standard by which people are determined as people, and pumpkins are determined as pumpkins (senses, objectivity, verification, and so forth)?
If in the event that I am presented evidence that I am not a pumpkin, and I ignore this evidence in favor of the belief that I am, by your previously defended rationale, it would seem that I had as much right to call YOU delusional for saying otherwise. If not, why?
(November 18, 2013 at 7:27 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: I am willing to revise anything that I hold as true, if the evidence can show otherwise. We are not talking about debating the reliability of our senses. We are not talking about whether or not I, personally, can trust that when I am looking at a rock, it is in fact a rock (well, a little we are).
Sure we are, if you were indeed delusional or being deceived then you would be unable to trust your senses or have any confidence that you could know anything about the exterior world; and yet you are assuming these two claims are true in order to argue that you are not delusional or being deceived. This is no different than a Christian saying they know they are not being deceived because God says so in the Bible; but if they were in fact being deceived then what God says in the Bible is all part of the deception.
Quote: I can certainly understand why you would want to take the conversation in that direction, because if you feel that you've undermined reality and all objectivity, then suddenly there is no conversation worth having. If a belief in God requires rejecting every human faculty of experience as a means of its defense, then by all means, carry on. But I will not participate.
I am pointing out the fact that your objection applies to everyone equally and therefore is irrelevant to the truth of atheism or theism. There could be a great evil demon deceiving all of us, we could all just be brains in a vat being stimulated to perceive what we perceive to be real. Like I said, it can be fun to ponder such things but they do nothing to support your position over mine.
Quote: I'm willing to bet that's not what you aim to do. I think we can both agree on a few things that would be necessary to have a conversation like this.
I guess I am not seeing your point.
Quote: I think you will concede that we both can see, touch, and hear things. Some of the things we feel can be verified, while others cannot.
Only if we are not delusional or being deceived; but wasn’t that the entire point of your original post?
Quote: I think you are able to recognize the difference between Objectivity and Subjectivity, and I'm willing to bet that you recognize the relevance that such words would have in a conversation of this sort.
I recognize the difference.
Quote: I think you will concede that there are things in the exterior universe, some of which are knowable, while others are not.
Yes, but only because the exterior Universe was made by the same God who made me and desires for me to learn about what He has made.
Quote: Are we going to be able to have a conversation about something real, or is it going to be derailed by a devil's advocate defending a sort of Pyrrhonism in order to avoid an honest exchange of ideas? I personally think that would be a waste of time, and I would really not like to have a conversation intended for students during their first week of philosophy.
I think it is a bit of a waste of time to ask a theist, “can you prove that you are not delusional?” when you yourself cannot prove that you are not delusional either. That is my point.
Quote: Can we skip the brain in a vat, and find common ground, or do we continue under the pretense that nothing can really be known and conversations are useless?
I do not believe that nothing can be known; but my reasons for believing this are theistic.
Quote: We are talking about beliefs that are either accurate depictions of reality, or they are not.
Yup. However, the way you framed the questions makes us question what reality is.
Quote:
This conversation is contingent upon us already establishing that we share the same faculties for discerning such things, and in fact, such faculties are required to do so to discern anything at all. Let's not waste time by starting where Descartes began. What would be the point of reading philosophy if every time we wanted to have a philosophical conversation we had to start from the very beginning?
Can you recognize a standard by which we determine reality from fantasy? Or am I a pumpkin if it seems real to me that I am a pumpkin?
If I am not a pumpkin, how is it that we establish that I am not without some standard by which people are determined as people, and pumpkins are determined as pumpkins (senses, objectivity, verification, and so forth)?
If in the event that I am presented evidence that I am not a pumpkin, and I ignore this evidence in favor of the belief that I am, by your previously defended rationale, it would seem that I had as much right to call YOU delusional for saying otherwise. If not, why?
Is this your quote or is this someone else’s? I can have this conversation with other theists because we have reasons for believing that we can know the Universe through our senses. Since you are a materialist, I do not see any way you can justify the same belief; this is why it is difficult to find common ground. I believe you have a fundamental flaw in your view of reality.
It just seems that you are grasping for an exception that could possibly make me delusional on the macro scale. It's not anything you actually consider to be true, but it's an example of an extenuating circumstance that would render my view of reality, on the whole, unreliable.
What I'm saying is that since that could be true for both of us, it would be more beneficial to grant that we're not brains in a vat, and speak to the rule in question, and not the exception.
Take my pumpkin example. The rule being that people are people, and pumpkins are pumpkins. A view that contradicts this would go against the rule. Are you with me? Our religious views are not necessary to determine whether or not my thinking I'm a pumpkin, makes me a pumpkin, right? It's an inaccurate representation of what we both concede to be reality. Having granted our senses and the limitations of them, we can speak about the things that are either accurate representations of what we know, or otherwise. Your thoughts?
Stalter isn't trying to give an out. What you're trying to do is fundamentally impossible, as per Immanuel Kant. You can't use your perception of reality as proof that whatever reality is in fact like matches your perception. In other words, you only ever have the perception, whatever may or may not lie "behind" those perceptions is unknowable.
And it's not like we wouldn't like to be able to rule out solipsism and external world skepticism; many have tried. I was initially fond of Ludwig Wittgenstein's private language argument, but it too fails. The only way 'out' of it is by an assumption.
November 18, 2013 at 10:36 pm (This post was last modified: November 18, 2013 at 10:38 pm by The Reality Salesman01.)
I agree with much of what you both are saying.
Let me ask you a question. Your answer may illustrate my point.
Would you jump off a sky scraper without any means to retard your fall? Explain.
If your senses cannot be trusted to discern any truths, how do you rationalize your explanation? How does a rationalist reconcile a reliance upon empiricism?
