Why naturalism is irrational (page 21)

rem

Oldsoul,

Perhaps there is a continuum from disagreeing to believing someone is deluded. I agree this is not in keeping with the strict use of the word "deluded", but using the word colloquially in absense of the perfect word with the same connotation of having a slight psychological issue.

"All people see the color green differently" - I disagree

"I believe there may be a spirit realm" - I disagree, but I could be wrong

"I have met Jesus and have a relationship with him" - I believe you are deluded

"I created the universe and all of your memories last Tuesday" - I believe you are deluded

There are probably many more levels of the continuum.

rem

OldSoul

"All people see the color green differently" - I disagree
"I believe there may be a spirit realm" - I disagree, but I could be wrong
"I have met Jesus and have a relationship with him" - I believe you are deluded

rem,

I understand what you are saying, in colloquial terms however, as far as I can tell these three provide you no basis for disproof or falsification of belief.

"I created the universe and all of your memories last Tuesday" - I believe you are deluded

Now, there is a basis for falsification. If you wish to continue believing that I am deluded, that is your prerogative. However, your belief is falsifiable and is therefore deluded. I just don't want you to leave this discussion without being made fully aware that if you cannot falsify a belief, the belief is not a delusion.

I believe I have met a spiritual being and have a relationship with it. You believe I am deluded. You cannot falsify my claim, so your belief is factually a delusion, while mine is colloquially a delusion.

I am comfortable with that state of affairs. Are you? If not, retract or falsify my belief.

OldSoul

the_classicist: It follows that we have no reason whatsoever to believe in God.

Actually, per your post and adhering to Lockean logic it follows that you have no reason whatsoever to believe in God. You cross the line of Lockean logic when you impose your perspective arrived at by your individual experiences on anyone extant from yourself. Is "extant" too arcane now? Edit that to read, "on anyone outside or standing apart from yourself."

You likewise have no reason whatsoever to believe someone who claim they HAVE had such an experience, since you haven't.

You likewise have no reason whatsoever to presume that because you have not experienced something that no one ever has.

You likewise have no reason to presume that someone's belief in God can be falsified.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

jgnat

I figure, green is green. I mean, we've all got the same cone and rod receptors in our eyeballs (except for those freaky color-blind people). It seems to me our eyes would all give the same electrical signal-range to the brain.

OldSoul

jgnat,

Imagine, if you will, that all your life what you call green I see as what you call purple and vice versa.

We would both be able to point at the same green object and identify the color as green, but the only way we would know for sure we interpretted the reflection/absorbtion/refraction of light the same way is if I could look through your eyes with your perception.

That would be the only way to know for sure. It is a philosophy conundrum. I think that is what rem is alluding to.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

the_classicist

Actually, per your post and adhering to Lockean logic it follows that you have no reason whatsoever to believe in God. You cross the line of Lockean logic when you impose your perspective arrived at by your individual experiences on anyone extant from yourself. Is "extant" too arcane now? Edit that to read, "on anyone outside or standing apart from yourself."

(n.b., technically, it's called Lockean epistemology). First of all, unless you have perceived the existence of God through sensation, which is the ONLY way of knowing whether or not something exists you are not justified in your belief that God exists (unless you can think of any other way of perceiving existence which I cannot).

You likewise have no reason whatsoever to believe someone who claim they HAVE had such an experience, since you haven't.

What sort of experience?

But I digress, since the only way of perceiving existence is by sensation and since God is held by most to be an unsensible mental agent, it follows that the existence of God is not unfalsifiable, but completely meaningless with respect to human beings.

Cygnus

Well.................... I have to admit I'm with rem on this one. If someone experiences God using one or more of their five senses, then they are delusional. I wouldn't mind such a deluded experience; in fact I'd welcome it. Why God hasn't chosen me yet to make himself known to me, I have no idea. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

OldSoul

the_classicist:
E.g. your not having skinny-dipped in my grandmother's pond does not mean the experience has never been had by anyone. You have never seen my grandmother's pond, therefore you would be well within your rights to disagree that she has a pond, or even that I have a living grandmother. That doesn't make the experience I have had any less real. I really can't be expected to provide all the examples of experiences you haven't had, of course. As with any human, their number far outweighs the number of experiences you have had. Your conclusions stretch too far when you assert that your lack of sensational experiences automatically means no one has experienced what you have not experienced. You can speak to the lack of importance of God in your life. But you can't really expect to speak for everyone, it would seem presumptuous. Respectfully,
OldSoul

Cygnus

Oh, and I wish I could find my (in)famous chat with a Bible believer about my allegiance to Last Thursdayism. It's the greatest off-the-cuff chat I've ever had. Some of you have seen it. It's on JWD somewhere, I need to find it since for some reason it's not on my hard drive. edit: I f'in found it! Here's the text:

jag1lisa: what religion are you

cygnustsp: Last Thursdayist

jag1lisa: i have never heard of that

jag1lisa: lol

cygnustsp: you should

jag1lisa: well what is it

jag1lisa: i mean what religion

cygnustsp: We believe that the universe was created Last Thursday

jag1lisa: what?

jag1lisa: i dont get it

jag1lisa: that is the wierdest thing i have heard yet

cygnustsp: I know, it's hard to comprehend

jag1lisa: im not saying anything about what you believe...its just
odd i have never heard of it

cygnustsp: Essentially, we believe that everything was created Last Thursday, and we are endowed with memories, appearance of age, and so forth

cygnustsp: the cycle continues every Thursday

jag1lisa: wow....and why do you believe this...i mean do get it out of the holy bible

cygnustsp: no, it is not in the Bible

jag1lisa: then why do you believe it

cygnustsp: No one has yet to disprove our doctrine, so we accept it by faith

jag1lisa: wow thats strange

jag1lisa: did someone just make it up or what?

cygnustsp: Nobody knows the exact origins

jag1lisa: wow that blows my mind

cygnustsp: Well, think about it. Isn't it fascinating that every Thursday you wake up a different person in a different life in a different universe?

jag1lisa: no i dont

jag1lisa: what makes thursday different than any othr day

cygnustsp: well, it has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? I mean, Last Mondayism sounds dumb

jag1lisa: yeah but then you are saying its just the name then

jag1lisa: see thursday is no differnt than any other day of the week

cygnustsp: you sound like you have doubts

jag1lisa: doubts about what?

cygnustsp: doubts about the truth of Last Thursdayism. if you're really interested in understanding the truth of the matter, I can arrange for someone in a local congregation to drop by and assist you

jag1lisa: yeah i have doubts cause there is no proof i mean nothing to go by

cygnustsp: that's why you need faith

jag1lisa: i mean it doesnt even go by Gods holy word

jag1lisa: so any blow joe walking down the street says ok lets make a religion about thursdays and people start following him i dont get it

cygnustsp: well, that is usually how religions get started

jag1lisa: no it isnt..most religions started with a book...the holy bible, the book of mormonisn....etc

jag1lisa: do you guys have a book or bible you go by

cygnustsp: but a person has to write the book first

jag1lisa: so what else do you beliebve in your religiong

cygnustsp: I guess you are also unfamiliar with the Last Thursdayism newsletters that get circulated once a week

cygnustsp: no, we have no official textbook or written dogma

jag1lisa: lol a newsletter is something that someone makes up...the bible has been around for ages

cygnustsp: actually, the Bible has only been around since Last Thursday

jag1lisa: haha i gotta go dude......this is the funniest thing i have ever heard

cygnustsp: okay, be careful what you mock, next Thursday you might come back as a porcupine.

OldSoul

Cygnus: Maybe someone can explain it to me.

I believe someone can. Maybe you can ask for an explanation.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

Why naturalism is irrational

Share this