tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post7550651808948480513..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Finding God in My Own MindMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-71568027267373204692011-06-12T00:06:45.095-07:002011-06-12T00:06:45.095-07:00I've got some videos on Alvin Plantinga on my ...I've got some videos on Alvin Plantinga on my youtube channel that you might find useful and enjoyable:<br /><br />http://youtu.be/eU-wpNOyuas<br />http://youtu.be/oSjRRp_3SSInormdoeringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279378756658563565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-27229077309911336972010-03-19T06:14:08.167-07:002010-03-19T06:14:08.167-07:00TaiChi said:
This sounds like an idea I've had...TaiChi said:<br /><i>This sounds like an idea I've had for some time, which I took from a theory of how panic attacks work. Roughly, the subject notices some stimulus (this might be a bodily sensation, or something external), interprets it as threatening, which then alters the perception of the stimulus in line with the interpretation, which then feeds back into the interpretation. The positive feedback loop quickly leads to a full-blown panic attack, and what was ambiguously threatening has become terrifying.</i><br /><br />When I read this I thought of the little child in bed who convinces himself there is a monster in the closet, and the superstitions of the jungle tribes in Papua New Guinea who blame misfortunes on invisible witches.<br /><br />I'll bet the tribal members think that their beliefs in witchcraft are "properly basic" too.everettatteburyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10394821262545399908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-35164128255629430552010-03-14T14:11:06.650-07:002010-03-14T14:11:06.650-07:00Thanks very much Kodie, and thanks for reading. Y...Thanks very much Kodie, and thanks for reading. You're examples are helpful. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-63230585499214508442010-03-14T13:32:38.265-07:002010-03-14T13:32:38.265-07:00Hi, I have been reading a lot of the articles that...Hi, I have been reading a lot of the articles that really address my questions and thoughts, unlike some other websites I frequent regarding religion and atheism. <br /><br />I wondered if I might guess what it feels like to sense god. In my experience, it is called neurosis. For example, some people get a really good "lucky" feeling when they notice a digital clock on certain numbers, or feel that a sandwich tastes slightly better if it is cut on the diagonal. Small differences make all the difference between ok and not quite ok, unease, and even a brief euphoria. Some people feel a boost whenever they see dogs, eat spaghetti, or smoke a cigarette, and feel significantly worse when they see snakes, eat oatmeal, or run out of cigarettes. Normal physical responses for peculiar preferences - some hate what we like and vice versa. <br /><br />jkshields' description sounded a lot like that to me. When God is "there," it feels like he/she is not alone, in a comforting way, like knowing you have food in the refrigerator without having to look at it, and so do not have a reason to fear going hungry, and unlike paranoia. When crisis is averted or survived, it feels like misplaced gratitude, attributing this catch to a divine being... relief like knowing your spouse's flight landed safely when you are yourself scared of airplanes. When imagining a world without god or god has suddenly disappeared, to a point where one doesn't know what to do (!?), maybe that is like losing your glasses or your keys. There are some people who become uneasy if there is one dirty spoon in the sink, and some who fidget if someone is 30 seconds late, or if something on their desk isn't perpendicular. Common feelings that are unreal but real. <br /><br />I think we all can relate to my examples as if you imagine god to be vitally important to the outcome of major events as well as to imagine god to be an individual factor, a peculiarity of yourself that gives you moments of highs and lows - they tick in your brain when they happen, but not exactly the same way for everyone. Someone else said they might be more like a panic attack, but I don't think sensing god always has to be that dramatic. <br /><br />I don't know where neuroses come from, but I find it telling that I share a few with my sister that we never realized until we were adults. Things "feel right" when minor details are what, to the individual, is "right," and when those details are slightly askew or even haphazard, most rational people will bear through it silently with internal unease, but some people have the embarrassment of not being able to function until they, oh, recite the list of states in alphabetical order, as if this were on the same level of importance as finding your keys before you can leave the house. <br /><br />I have heard people try to describe how it feels to know god or to receive messages in their heart or whatever, and none of them sounded remarkably different than a neurosis of no realistic bearing, being that I don't believe in god, but I imagine it is more for them like the example with the airplane making it ok. However:<br /><br />Thousands of flights make it ok every single day. Fear of flight is one of those things that's really irrational, but most of us tend to excuse it. Most of us can relate to wanting to check on an individual's safety in such a situation, and never think twice that their taxi will go off a bridge or something else that might happen but usually doesn't. It just makes us feel better to check than not know, and find out everything's still ok, even if it can go bad some other way. <br /><br />I hope my examples made sense. This is a really interesting blog with a lot of great topics, but a lot of academic language I'm not used to.Kodienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-9806920251337758992010-03-11T01:54:14.133-08:002010-03-11T01:54:14.133-08:00Matt,
Your question seems like it would be diffic...Matt,<br /><br />Your question seems like it would be difficult to answer in any context, though maybe I am misinterpreting. What I mean is, even if you merely asked me to tell you how it feels to sense a Zebra, I think I'd have a hard time getting the point across...<br /><br />I remember picking up a Christian flier on campus while taking your Philosophy of Mind class, which asked me "describe yellow" to a blind man. It would be really hard to do that, right?<br /><br />Though my second scenario is not quite as analogous to the God Sense (since a blind man is incapable of sensing yellow), I imagine this is how Christians feel when asked a question like yours.<br /><br />This is, of course, assuming that people are sensing God in the first place. Another concern, as you rightly point out, is if people sense God then why have 'faith in God'? We don't have faith in the Yellow or in Zebras.Matthew Griffinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112548908215237868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-76566162381083424022010-03-10T18:16:48.529-08:002010-03-10T18:16:48.529-08:00Tully,
I understand where you are coming from. I ...Tully,<br /><br />I understand where you are coming from. I made the same argument as a Phil undergrad when first presented with mind/body dualism. But there is much more to think about then presuming it is silly to think a mind may not be a material thing. Its a complicated topic and one that is not as simple as you infer. But identity plays a large role in materialism that equates mental states with psychological processes (brain states)<br /><br /><br />If you were to agree with Kripke’s argument then you can only conclude that minds are not material. Since we only have material vs. non material then by the law of exclusive middle concluding either one or the other is logically sound.<br /><br />I really think you should read Kripke's argument against materialism (i.e. identity theory). I think it would give you a better appreciation for the subject matter even if you don’t agree with him. Personally, I am not sure whether the mind is material or not. Remember, I am agnostic about most things...<br /><br />CSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-5837491058036293382010-03-09T19:32:28.374-08:002010-03-09T19:32:28.374-08:00CS,
So I'll take it that Kripke never demonst...CS,<br /><br />So I'll take it that Kripke never demonstrates consciousness without a material brain.<br /><br />My point being (for this as well as the Hume thing, which by the way I believe I stole the swan analogy from Hume) is that whatever problems materialists may have in explaining consciousness, they are insignificant compared to the problem the immaterialist has; that is having absolutely no basis for their premise. It has never been demonstrated anywhere. Consciousness is just the latest place the god of the gaps has retreated to. But where is the warrant to go from we don't understand "x" part of consciousness to ergo I know it is something that has never been shown to exist.<br /><br />Think about it, going from I don't know to therefore I know it must be something that I have no evidence for. <br /><br />Likewise for problems induction has. It's not perfect, but nothing comes close to delivering the results. Which is why when we really want to figure something out, it's what we use. We have learned a great deal about the universe by realizing that predictable patterns exist and can be discovered and used to make testable predictions, that is to say by using induction.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-55804198514152761562010-03-09T07:20:20.099-08:002010-03-09T07:20:20.099-08:00Matt,
Trying to prove or disprove God is like goi...Matt,<br /><br />Trying to prove or disprove God is like going down a never ending rabbit hole. You will spend the rest of your life wrestling with the issue taking it from this perspective.<br /><br />As far as Kripke and Chalmers I believe they are still around and would beg to differ on your claim that nobody in the Phil of mind would agree with them. From my last course in Phil of mind not to long ago these current philosophers held a lot of weight in the field. Now if you're suggesting that the eliminative materialist camp is popular you are being disingenuous. That camp is a minority in the field of Phil of mind and have some pretty bizarre positions that reduce widely accepted mental states of belief, desire, lust etc as just physiological processes. In fact Kirpke‘s argument flat out refutes such thinking by suggesting that the state of pain cannot be stimulation of C-fibers. And I am not aware that any philosopher that has put up any effective argument against kripke to date. But you're more than welcome to post evidence supporting your claim that Kirpke’s argument is outdated or that elminative materialism is a dominant position in the Phil of mind.<br /><br />CSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-31962378786788983522010-03-09T06:58:50.674-08:002010-03-09T06:58:50.674-08:00Tully,
David Hume on the problem of Induction. It...Tully,<br /><br />David Hume on the problem of Induction. Its often taught in a history of modern philosophy course or Phil of science course<br />http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/<br /><br />Kripke also raised the prospect of a posteriori necessities — facts that are necessarily true, though they can be known only through empirical investigation. Examples include “Hesperus is Phosphorus”, “Cicero is Tully”, “Water is H2O” and other identity claims where two names refer to the same object.<br /><br />Finally, Kripke gave an argument against identity materialism in the philosophy of mind, the view that every mental fact is identical with some physical fact (See talk). Kripke argued that the only way to defend this identity is as an a posteriori necessary identity, but that such an identity — e.g., pain is C-fibers firing — could not be necessary, given the possibility of pain that has nothing to do with C-fibers firing. Similar arguments have been proposed by David Chalmers<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Kripke#Naming_and_necessity<br /><br />CSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-49448355026532478412010-03-06T18:22:28.588-08:002010-03-06T18:22:28.588-08:00CS,
"For the consciousness problem of materi...CS,<br /><br />"For the consciousness problem of materialism Try reading Saul Kripke on identity theory."<br /><br />Mmmm, my reading list is pretty full, can you give me the quick and dirty on how Kripke demonstrated consciousness without a material brain?<br /><br />I'll wait.<br /><br />And that goes to your other question, and the whole "problem with induction" thing, there is no problem with induction. Yes, if I looked everywhere that was reasonable and never saw a black swan then I would hold that all swans are white, but it is a tentative conclusion. If a black swan is demonstrated then I change my assumption. But now let's look at the alternative. If I looked everywhere that was reasonable and never saw a black swan then I would hold that there MUST be black swans (as well as yellow, red, green and purple with pink polka-dots). And that is the real problem with any non-induction idea of knowledge.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-30601201944359017702010-03-06T17:59:50.235-08:002010-03-06T17:59:50.235-08:00"A miracle like stopping the earth from turni..."A miracle like stopping the earth from turning might be sufficient, under the right circumstances, to indicate that some supernatural force of adequate power to stop the earth exists. But that's a long way from showing than an omnipotent, omniscient, all good, singular, personal monotheistic God is real."<br /><br />Matt, I agree. I shouldn't have equivocated supernatural with omni-god. But dang, at least you could have given me credit for lowering the bar for the other guy.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-53512275068861435732010-03-03T22:48:53.636-08:002010-03-03T22:48:53.636-08:00Tully, I have to disagree with you about these kin...Tully, I have to disagree with you about these kinds of proof. A miracle like stopping the earth from turning might be sufficient, under the right circumstances, to indicate that some supernatural force of adequate power to stop the earth exists. But that's a long way from showing than an omnipotent, omniscient, all good, singular, personal monotheistic God is real. If I told you I could bench press 1,000 lbs, and then I only did 100, would you take that as sufficient evidence for the stronger claim? I've addressed miracles in a lot of earlier posts too. See the category at the left on miracles. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-18128981041514963622010-03-03T22:17:50.235-08:002010-03-03T22:17:50.235-08:00CS, you're conflating "evidence" wit...CS, you're conflating "evidence" with "empirical observations." Arguments count as a form of evidence or reasons that would justify believing. That's all the my demand for evidence is. Provide some grounds or reasons that render believing reasonable. If that's an unfair request, then I don't know what to say. Sounds like you're wanting to bracket off God belief from any sort of real rational scrutiny the way the reformed epistemologists are doing. I'm not willing to do that. The belief in God is too central and influential in too many people's lives for us to just let it go uncritically. <br /><br />Kripke's now dated argument about consciousness not withstanding, no one in the philosophy of mind really doubts that mind emanates from or is dependent upon the brain. Whatever the explanatory details are about mental states and consciousness, the existence of minds is grounded in brain function.Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-47079127394759482302010-03-03T18:51:37.139-08:002010-03-03T18:51:37.139-08:00Tully,
I have no idea what you mean by evidence ...Tully, <br /><br />I have no idea what you mean by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. One reading of David Hume and the problem of induction ought to convince you that scientific evidence is not certain. So I don’t know what type of evidence you are referring to nor to what extent. But if you were a reasonable person you ought to have a falsification for your non belief in God or I am just going to convince you of having faith in your position.<br /><br />For the consciousness problem of materialism Try reading Saul Kripke on identity theory. He provides an nice elaborate argument using modal logic suggesting that mental states cannot be the same as physical states of the brain.<br /><br />CSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-90642579948188536772010-03-03T18:05:58.704-08:002010-03-03T18:05:58.704-08:00"If not what amount of evidence is necessary ..."If not what amount of evidence is necessary for an atheist to believe in God?"<br /><br />Short answer: Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.<br /><br />Long answer: Real life, no equivocation miracles.<br /><br />Now, I don't know what your theological leanings are, but I'll give you a couple of examples from the Christian Bible.<br /><br />In Joshua chapter 10, Joshua asks the sun to stand still and, "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the people had revenge upon their enemies."<br /><br />Now, today we know that at the equator the linear velocity of the earth is about 1,000 mph. If tomorrow the earth suddenly stops and the majority of life isn't killed by that rapid acceleration, I'm going to start to say, "Hey maybe there is something supernatural at work here (still probably not going to worship it because the event only happened to enable the slaughter of sentient beings, but hey, it's something)."<br /><br />Or in Matthew, chapter 27: "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who were fallen were raised; And after coming out of the graves after his resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many."<br /><br />A number of verifiable corpses suddenly rising from decomposure and reconstituting themselves? Yep, you'd have my attention. <br /><br />According to that ancient text, events like those above used to happen with some regularity. Now, not so much so. Hmmm?<br /><br />How about an easy one. God, Gods, spirits (holy or otherwise) all rest on a single premise; consciousness without a material brain. You want to hook me (or at least get me to follow the lure)? Demonstrate it, just once. Just once demonstrate consciousness without a material brain. I'm no ideologue, I promise you'll have my attention.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-26209361239451205862010-03-03T17:26:54.630-08:002010-03-03T17:26:54.630-08:00Anon,
You directed your question to Matt, but her...Anon,<br /><br />You directed your question to Matt, but here is my take:<br /><br />"So, are atheist being unfair in asking for evidence of God?"<br /><br />I'll give you my short answer,"NO."<br /><br />Now, for my long answer. If I want to discover if a phenomenon is true then I look for evidence. That is if I want to know if I put it in my bag of knowledge and expect it to deliver consistent results, then I look for evidence. I do that because to do otherwise requires me to surrender any sense of truth.<br /><br />Evidence is the final arbiter. In fact, it is the common human definition of sanity. No matter what logically seems right or what makes me feel good or any other criteria, in the end the proof is in the evidence. No rational person in their day-to-day lives denies this on important issues.<br /><br />I don't believe in common sense as the final arbiter because common sense is frequently wrong. How do I know intuition is frequently wrong, the evidence.<br /><br />Why shouldn't I believe in Zeus, Vishnu, Bigfoot, and anal probing alien abductors? Really, give me a good reason why I shouldn't without resorting to an argument from evidence.<br /><br />You can't. You'll use evidence to refute all of the claims of the above entities. But when it comes to your pet entity you ask for special dispensation. Why should I dismiss all those other entities because of a lack of evidence but accept yours because I'm setting the bar too high for you?<br /><br />Or, to be consistent, are you saying that I should believe anything anyone suggests because evidence doesn't matter?M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-71684390808953464752010-03-03T17:05:04.853-08:002010-03-03T17:05:04.853-08:00I've had many 'spiritual' experiences,...I've had many 'spiritual' experiences, but I find them to be irrelevant to the existence of some invisible being. It is more of a personal, subjective thing. To experience a god would probably be more objective if it were to happen.<br />--------------------------<br /><a href="http://the-atheist-perspective.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">The Atheist Perspective</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-82601579450978596092010-03-02T04:26:25.140-08:002010-03-02T04:26:25.140-08:00Matt,
Atheists often ask, "where is the evi...Matt, <br /><br />Atheists often ask, "where is the evidence for God"<br /><br />A possible problem with this is that the issue of God is not evidence based much like science, math and many disciplines that have a "philosophy of" in front of them. So maybe when atheist ask for evidence they are asking for too much. Basically they are being unfair in requiring theist to give them a proof of an issue that only requires an argument. The acceptance and practice of science has no proof but an argument (philosophy of science). Even logic has no definitive proof as the meta proof of the proof can still be questioned for a proof by the sneaky theist.<br /><br />I recently sat on a jury and during deliberations encountered that half the jury wanted to acquit the man because the evidence that existed was not enough. I thought that this was interesting because I wondered what amount of evidence would be enough. It was suggested by some jurors that if the man was on trial for a lesser crime they would convict him easily. But this strikes me as shifting the level of evidence in accord with the level of crime. This seems inherently unfair as an X amount of evidence should convict a man, whether the committed shop lifting or murder.<br /><br />My point here is that asking for evidence for God's existence may be unfair. It isn’t like God is a Zebra in the animal kingdom that can be checked for DNA. Science, math and other disciplines are not evidence based as well and we would think it bizarre to ask where the evidence is for incorporating the existence of the scientific method into our lives.<br /><br />So, are atheist being unfair in asking for evidence of God? <br /><br />If not what amount of evidence is necessary for an atheist to believe in God?<br /><br />CSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-46696997737066803542010-03-02T03:36:57.623-08:002010-03-02T03:36:57.623-08:00Matt,
I am thinking the internal checking proces...Matt,<br /><br />I am thinking the internal checking process is a priori but maybe the excerpt below is has somethign to do with RE?<br /><br />CS<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />"There was a young man who said "God <br /><br />Must find it exceedingly odd <br />To think that the tree <br />Should continue to be <br /><br />When there's no one about in the quad." <br /><br />"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd; I am always about in the quad. <br /><br />And that's why the tree <br />Will continue to be <br />Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-1055690382361135162010-02-23T07:17:07.711-08:002010-02-23T07:17:07.711-08:00When we (the human species) don't have all the...When we (the human species) don't have all the information at hand for something/anything, our minds tend to "auto-fill" the missing peices of information. Magicians rely heavily on these processes to complete their illusions. When something looks to be a certain way and we don't readily understand what took place, we make sense of the event using what we DO know. Even our eyes fill in missing peices of information, leaving no one to say they are immune to this process. Proper thinking has to have safeguards to minimize the effect of this "auto-fill" process our brains do. I wish I had time to look up this specific study, but I seem to remember elements of this may be outlined in an article titled, "Less guilty by reason of adolesence." I believe this article described some of the neurological processes that occur during flight or fight responses. During highly emotional events the logical processing of information is dimished and events are often highly altered when an individual later "recalls" those events.<br /><br />RE seems to fit nicely in with the neurological "auto-fill" processes, including confirmation baises that we are all prone to.<br /><br />I appreciate this site because it helps one to understand these pitfalls and to build safegards into one's critical thinking skills.Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484481246432964371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-76804692327185160032010-02-19T21:24:21.089-08:002010-02-19T21:24:21.089-08:00JK,
You wrote, "When I try to think “There i...JK,<br /><br />You wrote, "When I try to think “There is no God” there is an unbearable emptiness and meaninglessness to my present awareness, my knowledge and presumption of personal and intellectual history become scrambled like looking at 0s and 1s instead of program output on a computer, and I have no sense of momentum to the next moment."<br /><br />But, in the end, the program output is the results of 1's and 0's isn't it?<br /><br />Why can't we appreciate the results of the 1's and 0's on the screen for what they are? Why do you think that invoking magic is necessary to appreciate the program?M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-51746526050670176382010-02-19T20:31:46.174-08:002010-02-19T20:31:46.174-08:00"You realize, of course, that feelings can ar..."You realize, of course, that feelings can arise from a lot of sources, some of them external and many internal. And you realize that even when the source is external, we are often mistaken in the conclusions we draw about what's really going on. "<br /><br />Hi Matt. You wouldn't be able to point me towards a paper or the like that expands on this explanation? <br />This sounds like an idea I've had for some time, which I took from a theory of how panic attacks work. Roughly, the subject notices some stimulus (this might be a bodily sensation, or something external), interprets it as threatening, which then alters the perception of the stimulus in line with the interpretation, which then feeds back into the interpretation. The positive feedback loop quickly leads to a full-blown panic attack, and what was ambiguously threatening has become terrifying.<br />I think mystical experiences could be explained in a similar way to this - as interpretation and stimulation feeding off one another - and it would do just as well for road-to-Damascus type experiences as for minor mystical experiences.<br /> <br />Any Pointers or thoughts for me on this?TaiChihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05130016615104653729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-64988061743795849182010-02-19T13:11:29.750-08:002010-02-19T13:11:29.750-08:00Thanks JK. This is very interesting, and more enl...Thanks JK. This is very interesting, and more enlightening than much of what I've gotten on this. But it's still problematic, I think. What you are describing is a bunch of sensations or feelings, and you've heavily interpreted them as having a particular significance and indicating God's existence. That could be fine, but what's important is how you get from the first to the second. You realize, of course, that feelings can arise from a lot of sources, some of them external and many internal. And you realize that even when the source is external, we are often mistaken in the conclusions we draw about what's really going on. So the $64k question for someone who infers God in this way is, what is your error checking, corrective, or disconfirmation methodology? What measures have you taken or do you take to be able to say first, I have had a bunch of (remarkable) feelings, and second, from among all of the alternative natural and supernatural alternative explanations, I have sufficient grounds to conclude that the feelings are caused by this particular God and not something else? <br /><br />And I have to say, that I think the notion of needing to actively seek out and then disprove all of the relevant alternative hypotheses is something that many religious folks in this tradition bother with. They already believe in God, they have a particular ideology that they subscribe to, then when they have some funny feelings, they take those without much more effort to disconfirm as evidence for God. The problem, of course, is that this doesn't provide justification for us in any other ordinary circumstances. More later. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-24302545019981075422010-02-19T04:38:53.807-08:002010-02-19T04:38:53.807-08:00The Intro Bit:
I originally posted this on Common...<b>The Intro Bit:</b><br /><br />I originally posted this on Common Sense Atheism,... but then realized it had sparked an entry on your blog here, so I am re-posting.<br /><br />"Matt McCormick: There’s still no one who can offer some details about what it’s like to have this sensus divinitatus or the testimony of the Holy Ghost?What’s it like when your radio is tuned to the God channel?Please give me some reasons to think that you all are not just putting us on. "<br /><br />I don’t fall into the category of a “reformed epistemologist” but after reading about this debate on Prosblogion I thought I’d give it a shot. I doubt what I describe would be hailed by RE proponents as the experience which justifies 'proper basicality.' I am not sure if that experience can be described in the way you are asking for; it is similar to asking someone to describe the sorts of feelings, sights, smells, or apprehensions that are occurring which justifies saying "I am a person." Forgive me if I talk in Academ-Theo-glish, I am trying to avoid it.<br /><br /><b>The Answer Bit:</b><br /><br />Since you have asked for sights and smells etc. I will do my best to put what I would call “an intuition” in these terms. Most of the time my knowledge of God being is like a buzzing, above the sense of interior thought monologue,… and/or the series of incoming thought perceptions. It is the sensation of community, similar to the sensation when two people are reading in a room, even though they are occupied with separate ideas there is more than a concept of communion, there is a metaphysic,… a real relation between us. But I become even more aware of God’s being (primarily verb not noun) when I try to push away from this buzzing/relation-awareness. It is similar to the feeling of missing a step, surprise, and then fear, and then pain. And whether you end up in a heap on the floor or catch the next step, you are thankful to feel ground beneath you although aggrieved at the whole event. When I try to think “There is no God” there is an unbearable emptiness and meaninglessness to my present awareness, my knowledge and presumption of personal and intellectual history become scrambled like looking at 0s and 1s instead of program output on a computer, and I have no sense of momentum to the next moment.<br />I don’t know if that is the kind of description you were looking for, but it is much more a result of what I would call a meditation on God (in the style of Descartes) or Schleiermacher's feeling of absolute dependance than a true testimony (which is more about our perceptions of God's activity in the world post-conversion and not about the being of God, which is meta-conversion?) and I think anything which undergirds proper basicality will have to be a similar meditation, which may come down to (as your anonymous commentator said sardonically, but seems to me serious enough) "Just Cuz".jkshieldshttp://twitter.com/jkshieldsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-50397016426766393692010-02-18T15:30:53.022-08:002010-02-18T15:30:53.022-08:00Hi Matt,
I posted a synopsis of our conversation ...Hi Matt,<br /><br />I posted a synopsis of our conversation on Prosblogion. The first version of my post accidentally published early, so one of the trackbacks is to that old post. The new post is up, though, and there are already some comments on it. <br /><br />I still haven't responded to any of your objections, but at least the post is up, so others can respond to your challenge. Anyway, I'm going to post my own remarks as soon as I can.<br /><br />RobBobcathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04797941051438316014noreply@blogger.com