If Theism isn't a Delusion, Then What Is It?

Mr. Pessimistic

Mad:

Quote:
The question implicit in this whole thread -- and to some degree, in this forum as a whole -- is whether or not there are some things that our senses, even extended by our tools, are insufficient to perceive with any confidence.

But that does not leave room for us to just invent gods and the supernatural.

I do not buy the rest of your argument, but I may decide to respond in the near future. But it is plain that the rest is just speculative blah blah. Whether or not someone CALLS blue and green by those specific names, the colors still have a different quality on the eye.

Mr. P.

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George Carlin

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

MadArchitect

me: I'm not saying that our sense are flawed.
Frank: It sure sounds that way.

To contend that our senses are flawed, I'd first have to establish that they're supposed to be doing something that they're not. My vision is, in that sense, "flawed", because it requires some kind of corrective to bring it to the standard that most humans were evolved to see.

What I'm saying is that the kinds of questions that our senses are being employed to answer are not the sort of problems that they were evolved to deal with. That's only a flaw if you take it as given that humans were evolved to know things like how matter works, what's the origin of life, etc.

AKA, there is no rational belief no matter what information its based off of, or how logically arrived at.

Again, this is a difference in how we conceive of the topic. I don't see reason as some sort of objective knowledge of things. Rather, I see reason as a procedure for elaborating on premises by interrelated, continuous cognitive steps. So a rational belief would be one that derives a conclusion from a stated premise by steps that any rational person could follow. That doesn't mean that the argument is objectively true, only that z follows from a. The truth value of a may still be in question, and that calls z into question by association.

...but that does not automatically mean that our process is fundamentally faulty or untrustworthy.

And I'm not saying that it is. I'm trying to counter a swing in the opposite direction, ie. one that takes that process to be fundamentally trustworthy and essentially infallible as a guide to truth.

Science is a process and the things science offers as theory have been tested literally millions, billions, even trillions of times with the same results. These results have been shown to be universal 100% of the time.

I think you may have an inflated sense of the operation of science. I'd be interested to see some evidence to the effect that any assertion has been scientifically tested even a quarter as many times as you say they've been tested (unless you're counting high school science lab), or that any tests have been made to confirm the "universality" of the results of any scientific theory.

Frank 013

Quote:
Mad
That doesn't mean that the argument is objectively true, only that z follows from a. The truth value of a may still be in question, and that calls z into question by association.

You seem to be assuming that “a” is faulty without any evidence to support that claim.

Quote:
Mad
And I'm not saying that it is. I'm trying to counter a swing in the opposite direction, i.e. one that takes that process to be fundamentally trustworthy and essentially infallible as a guide to truth.

Again, for all we know it might very well be the truth, and even if it isn’t it a far cry more truthful than religion.

In any case trying to claim that “z” is faulty without knowing that “a” is faulty is not a rational argument because “a” does have data to support it.

Any counter claim has to show flaws in “a” before it should be seriously considered.

from my experience most religions try to teach things that are contrary to my personal observations of my reality, science has never done this.

Quote:
Mad
I think you may have an inflated sense of the operation of science. I'd be interested to see some evidence to the effect that any assertion has been scientifically tested even a quarter as many times as you say they've been tested (unless you're counting high school science lab), or that any tests have been made to confirm the "universality" of the results of any scientific theory.

I am counting every lab in middle school and high school, every chemistry set, makeshift lab and professional lab on this planet.

For example, When I was in middle school we did a gravity test, we set up several vacuum chambers and dropped a metal ball and a feather side by side. We witnessed exactly what everyone who conducts this experiment does, the feather and the ball falling at exactly the same speed.

This simple experiment is conducted in classrooms all across the nation and when conducted correctly every class without exception experiences the same phenomena. (universal)

There are other examples such as MOSI (Museum Of Science and Industry) in Tampa that houses similar experimental equipment for use by visitors, some of these experiments can be preformed hundreds of times in a day at a single location.

Other science museums do the same.

And these are only the lab experiments there are countless examples of people taking 2 objects of varing weight and dropping them off of something to see if this gravity theory holds weight. (heh, that works on 2 levels)

Later

MadArchitect

Frank 013: You seem to be assuming that “a” is faulty without any evidence to support that claim.

Why do you keep harping on the word "faulty"? You're like a broken record. I didn't bring that term into play. What I'm saying is that a is arational. Even if a is substantiated by logical argument, it's only substantiated in reference to another alogical premise. That's "faulty" only if you assume that logical arguments should be devoid of any arational premises, and if that's your assumption, then it makes sense to say that there is no logic.

Again, for all we know it might very well be the truth, and even if it isn’t it a far cry more truthful than religion.

You're right. For all we know, it might be the truth. My point is, "for all we know."

For example, When I was in middle school we did a gravity test, we set up several vacuum chambers and dropped a metal ball and a feather side by side. We witnessed exactly what everyone who conducts this experiment does, the feather and the ball falling at exactly the same speed.

The real test of the theory would be to craft a different experiment that tested the same principle. Practicing scientists may repeat a published experiment in order to check the original experimenters results, but if they want to challenge their conclusions or the theories derived therefrom, they devise a new experiment that isolates and tests those conclusions in application. Repeating exactly the same experiment only illustrates the conclusions drawn from that experiment. It tests the repeatability of the experiment, but the theory is an interpretation of phenomenon, and its application across the board depends on the assumption that it is applicable in a variety of situations.

Frank 013

Quote:
Mad
Why do you keep harping on the word "faulty"? You're like a broken record.

Why the personal slight? Are you offended by the word faulty?

Quote:
Mad
I didn't bring that term into play. What I'm saying is that a is arational.

But only if you assume that it is somehow flawed. There is no evidence that it is in anyway flawed or lacking. (Is that a better word)

Quote:
Mad
Even if a is substantiated by logical argument, it's only substantiated in reference to another alogical premise.

The premise is only alogical if there is reason to believe that it is incomplete, there are no such reasons, not through our senses, not through our technology and not statistically.

If you want to keep harping on our sensory limitations that’s fine, but until there is some reason to conclude we have missed something that will change the very nature of the theories that seem to rule our universe I am going to argue from the standpoint that they exist as detected, because it is the most rational standpoint available.

Quote:
Mad
It tests the repeatability of the experiment…

So it’s a test enough said.

Later

MadArchitect

Frank 013: Why the personal slight? Are you offended by the word faulty?

No; I'm frustrated at constantly seeing you try to fit my arguments into some mold that they weren't intended for. You've decided somewhere along the line that I think our senses are inherently faulty, logic is inherently faulty, we ought to behave as though we can't trust either, religion is blameless and science is worthless. And it doesn't matter how often I connect my actual arguments to more moderate viewpoints, you continue to argue as though I were arguing for those extreme points of view.

me: What I'm saying is that a is arational.
Frank: But only if you assume that it is somehow flawed. There is no evidence that it is in anyway flawed or lacking.

No; you don't have to assume that it is somehow flawed. Arationality is a flaw only if you assume that total rationality is a pre-requisite for any practical application of logic. If that were the case, then having an arational premise would be a flaw. But I don't make that assumption; neither does logic as a philosophical discipline. It's an unreasonable exectation to have, because we are, as finite beings, incapable of building a logical argument on a completely logical foundation.

The premise is only alogical if there is reason to believe that it is incomplete, there are no such reasons, not through our senses, not through our technology and not statistically.

I get the feeling that you're not understanding what I mean by alogical. I don't mean illogical -- that would imply that the premise contradicts itself in some way. What I mean by alogical is that the premise is supplied by something other than logical argument. Sense datum is, in that sense, alogical -- it's provided by sensory perception rather than logical thought. Hypotheticals and assumptions are also alogical.

You can look at logic as a kind of machine -- a copy machine, say. It performs a specific function, and does that consistently, but it requires external input. That input can be, itself, a photocopy (that is, a premise arrived at by logical argument), but that photocopy is of something that was not itself a photocopy. And in this analogy, whatever was not a photocopy (that is, not made by the machine of logic) is alogical.

That's what I mean when I say that we don't have access to a purely logical argument. We can't make an argument that doesn't ultimately derive from something provided by some faculty other than logic.

Frank 013

Mad
I get the feeling that you're not understanding what I mean by alogical.

I think you are correct, I thought you were explaining it as I was debating against.

And I agree with the premise, except when it is used in a debate to allow for logic leaping.

Later

Robert Tulip

Dawkins emphasises the definition of theism as 'supernaturalism'. Supernaturalism most certainly is delusional, as natural evolutionary science provides a sufficient explanation for truth without postulating miracles or a Creator being who is more complex than the creation.

I saw a review of The God Delusion in the New York Review of Books where the critic elides from rational natural theology (God as Einsteinian ground of being, etc) into illogical and baseless beliefs in supernaturalism. You cannot use arguments for a naturalistic God (= universe) to critique Dawkins' demolition of supernaturalism!

I am convinced that Christianity still has not come to terms with Copernicus, as the idea of "salvation = going to heaven" only makes sense in a flat earth universe. Since Luther described Copernicus as "an upstart astrologer" Protestantism has remained in thrall to a delusional idea of heaven. And the Catholics are worse - eg limbo.

Despite these comments, I continue to call myself a Christian, because we need a new naturalistic concept of salvation, understood as evolutionary adaptation. The story of Jesus is to me at the centre of human history, in terms of the confrontation between truth and power. Taking this story in natural terms, I believe we can re-write Christian theology to exclude supernaturalism while retaining the Einsteinian God. For example, Jesus taught us (Matt 6:10) to pray 'thy will be done on earth as in heaven'. This can be interpreted to mean that heaven is our ideal vision of love and justice and wholism, so our efforts should go to transforming the earth to align it with this vision. Similarly, Jesus said (John 3:17) 'I came not to condemn the world but to save it'. This idea of saving the world (not saving souls) entirely conflicts with the supernaturalist error, and with its crazy ideas such as the rapture. As Paul said (Rom 8:22), 'creation groans in travail' - meaning the eschaton should be expected as a rupture in our current world view, not a magical rapture. And when Malachi (3:2) speaks of the refiners fire, it is precisely the Dawkinsian robust and rigorous focus on truth that the prophet is demanding.


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT