tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post7485765906275849909..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Religious experiences - and alien abductionStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-90489528596041132352008-03-18T02:53:00.000+00:002008-03-18T02:53:00.000+00:00What Is Consciousness?Now, I happen believe that t...<A HREF="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/03/what-is-consciousness.html" REL="nofollow">What Is Consciousness?</A><BR/><BR/><I>Now, I happen believe that there's no such thing as "consciousness" in the sense of something tangible that we can point to and say. "That's consciousness." I think it's merely a descriptive term for brain activity.</I><BR/><BR/>Larry Moran goes on to ask whether the character Data on Star Trek (TNG) was conscious. An interesting question.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-1840948460029600572008-03-17T14:28:00.000+00:002008-03-17T14:28:00.000+00:00Christian Science helped my mother to feel better ...Christian Science helped my mother to feel better in herself. Although I think it's intellectual hogwash, I had the good sense to stop trying to argue her out of it when I realised it was, subjectively speaking, doing her good. She met some very pleasant people through it, and thank goodness had enough sense not to stop seeing doctors 'when her faith wasn't strong enough', or to give up alcohol!anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-86071312497220563142008-03-17T11:45:00.000+00:002008-03-17T11:45:00.000+00:00anticant writes,"how many of us have [or seek] ade...anticant writes,"how many of us have [or seek] adequate justification for all [or any] of our beliefs?"<BR/><BR/>This is like asking 'how many of us try to make sound decisions in life'? I don't know the answer. But I do think things would be better for everyone if we all did.<BR/><BR/>He goes on to say, "I agree with you that irrational beliefs tend to produce unfortunate consequences, but rational beliefs can produce bad consequences too. The question of what is 'good' and 'bad' is a moral issue which has nothing necessarily to do with belief or disbelief in the 'supernatural'."<BR/><BR/>My choice of the word "bad" may have been misleading. I didn't mean it (neccessarily) in a moral sense. For example, do we expect believers in Christian Science to make "good" helath care decisions? I suggest that their irrational beliefs (which they are not adequately justified in having) will tend to produce poor choices, with greater negative consequences. Not that rational choices always produce good or positive health consequences, just that they tend to produce more favorable consequences more often (than irrationally-inspired choices).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-25450267864954078602008-03-17T08:47:00.000+00:002008-03-17T08:47:00.000+00:00KyleHere's another example for you. Suppose a new ...Kyle<BR/><BR/>Here's another example for you. Suppose a new kind of telescope is developed to reveal otherwise unobservable and unknowable portions of reality. Scientists know, however, that on at least a majority of occasions, this telescope produces at least very significantly deceptive results. In fact, it may not work at all. You peak through the telescope and seem to observe P. However, when others peak through it, they observe quite different things. Oddly, very often, people tend to see what they expect to see.<BR/><BR/>Knowing all this, how reasonable is it for you to believe P?<BR/><BR/>Not very reasonable, I'd suggest.<BR/><BR/>So why is it reasonable of you to trust your religious experience?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-32295304717164569832008-03-17T08:41:00.000+00:002008-03-17T08:41:00.000+00:00Kyle S said: “…you said that the orange example sh...Kyle S said: <BR/><BR/>“…you said that the orange example shows how my beliefs are undermined, but I don't think this applies.<BR/><BR/>Showing that the 'orange' on the table is an illusion only undermines belief in that orange, otherwise we would have the ridiculous situation where all beliefs about oranges are undermined by showing that some are illusions.”<BR/><BR/>I think your belief is undermined, Kyle. First, in my magic show example, the orange is *not* an illusion, but still, under those circumstances, it’s unreasonable for a member of the audience to take their experience entirely at face value.<BR/><BR/>True, we shouldn’t generally be skeptical about the existence of oranges. But that’s because, in normal circumstances, there’s no reason to suspect deception/illusion.<BR/><BR/>But clearly, in the circumstances in which he finds himself, this audience-member should be rather more skeptical.<BR/><BR/>But then so should you.<BR/><BR/>My point is that the circumstances surrounding your religious experience are relevantly similar to those surrounding the experiences of others, very many of whom we know to be deluded.<BR/><BR/>We know that, *in the very sort of circumstances in which you find yourself* (i.e. the subject has a compelling seemingly-revelatory experience of some sort of supernatural reality) people are very often (i.e. in a majority of cases) deceived to at least a significant degree.<BR/><BR/>So your belief, based on your experience, *is* relevantly like that of the person who carries on trusting his eyes even when he knows he’s at a magic show, isn’t it?<BR/><BR/>Worse still, there is also very good independent evidence (the problem of evil) that what you believe is not, in fact, true. But even if there were not such evidence, you'd surely still in trouble, rationally speaking.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-5070719783300293512008-03-17T08:23:00.000+00:002008-03-17T08:23:00.000+00:00Terence - how many of us have [or seek] adequate j...Terence - how many of us have [or seek] adequate justification for all [or any] of our beliefs? I believe it's worthwhile for me to keep on pitching in here, probably because I rather enjoy it, but I'm not at all sure my belief is justified.....I agree with you that irrational beliefs tend to produce unfortunate consequences, but rational beliefs can produce bad consequences too. The question of what is 'good' and 'bad' is a moral issue which has nothing necessarily to do with belief or disbelief in the 'supernatural'. Ethics is about human motivation. It is not, as religionists claim [conveniently for themselves], necessarily linked to belief or disbelief in God. That assertion is a howling 'category mistake' on the part of faith-peddlers.<BR/><BR/>Enigman - you've no need to take me at my word, respectfully or otherwise; I was not speaking 'ex cathedra'. But nor was my remark a 'rhetorical flourish' - just a statement of the obvious. If your assesment of the evidence you refer to leads you to adhere to the Cartesian error of dualism, that is your privilege, or - in my view - your error. You have no need to feel embarrassed about your honest beliefs, nor am I 'blaming' you or any other theist for failing to produce tangible evidence for the existence of a 'supernatural' realm, or of 'supernatural' beings. I am merely pointing out that assertion is not plausible evidence.<BR/><BR/>As for your concluding remark, whatever 'truth' is it strikes me as hopelessly egocentric - indeed, self-indulgent - to believe that "what matters is salvation, is endless being without fear of suffering". For me, what matters is to get through each day of the here and now as best I can in the hope that I am doing something to make the miserable world around me a slightly better place.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-14416145866448377642008-03-17T00:17:00.000+00:002008-03-17T00:17:00.000+00:00Hmm... (thanks for the links by the way) anticant:...Hmm... (thanks for the links by the way) anticant: <I>All that believers and theists of any stripe have ever produced is pure assertion. There is no tangible testable evidence, other than their beliefs, for the existence of a Creator God.</I><BR/>That's a sweeping statement: should I respectfully take you at your word; or take you to be speaking with a rhetorical flourish? The latter is ordinary language, I guess (and was just addressed by Kyle S), but if the former then note (<I>sorry for the length of the following</I>) that I have myself made a preliminary investigation of some tangible (<I>and therefore standing in need of interpretation of course, whence the status of religious experiences is apposite</I>) testable (<I>and therefore testable in many ways, depending upon the skills of the investigators</I>) evidence (<I>or rather, what would, I believe, become evidence upon proper scientific scrutiny</I>) for substantial dualism about mind and brain, which would be in its turn evidence for a Creator God if the prior probabilities of the alternative explanations (<I>of the primary evidence, and of dualism</I>) are sufficiently less than 100%.<BR/><BR/>(deep breath:) My problem has been (it seems to me) that almost all the scientists who could investigate such things properly either already take those priors to be 100% (in practice) or else are being inundated by pseudoparanormal spam (for the obvious sociological reasons that readers here would know about). I agree with you that the presence or absence of such evidence is crucial (although I'm irrationally open-minded about alternative standards amongst my fellow humans). And I'm even aware that I might just be fooling myself (in which case such an investigation, unlikely as it is, would be embarrasing for me, and useless scientifically), and would in any case have a lot to learn about the details. But that I have only produced such assertions as the above (and the continuing absence of such scientific evidence) is something that atheistic physicalists (who dominate our self-assessing scientific communities) make their own free choice about. Whereas I detected an implicit blaming of <I>theists</I> such as myself for such absences, in anticant's remark above. Is it really <I>that</I> simple (sure theists were once to blame for the deficiencies of science, but they were once to thank for ethical progress, and so what?)?<BR/><BR/>(incidentally, terence and anticant, what you say at the end reminds me of Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology: what <I>matters</I> is salvation, is endless being without fear of suffering; whereas it is of course the truth that matters:)Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-30792081709324491272008-03-16T23:36:00.000+00:002008-03-16T23:36:00.000+00:00I'm now calling myself Kyle S, to try and make thi...I'm now calling myself Kyle S, to try and make things easier.<BR/><BR/>Stephen, you said that the orange example shows how my beliefs are undermined, but I don't think this applies.<BR/><BR/>Showing that the 'orange' on the table is an illusion only undermines belief in that orange, otherwise we would have the ridiculous situation where all beliefs about oranges are undermined by showing that some are illusions.<BR/><BR/>You may have pointed out how some people have clearly deluded beliefs about God. However, this does not undermine my belief. What you need to do is show that there is a problem with my belief.<BR/><BR/>I'd just like to reiterate my claim is that my experience can function as a perfectly acceptable ground for my belief not that my experience should convince you. I am responding to the charge that my belief is irrational because I cannot present any publicly accessible evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21767940005150578342008-03-16T21:08:00.000+00:002008-03-16T21:08:00.000+00:00anticant writes, "what really matters is not wheth...anticant writes, "what really matters is not whether you are rational or justified in believing God exists – the crucial point at issue is the practical consequences of such beliefs . . . . "<BR/><BR/>While I do agree with your assessment of the practical consequences of those beliefs, I think you are overlooking that those consequences arose *because* beliefs were adopted without adequate justification. In other words, unjustified (irrational) beliefs don't tend to produce "good" consequences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-90036504807183827102008-03-16T11:23:00.000+00:002008-03-16T11:23:00.000+00:00Enigman, I do happen to believe that reason is a m...Enigman, I do happen to believe that reason is a more useful – because more realistic – tool than faith for making sense of the universe and what is actually going on in it. But I recognise that this, too, is a conclusion based on faith [in reason]. Which is not to say that atheism, or agnosticism, is a ‘faith’: it is not; it is absence of faith in the existence of a supernatural realm or of ‘supernatural’ beings. For me, as for most non-believers, this a question of the balance of probability. <BR/><BR/>All that believers and theists of any stripe have ever produced is pure assertion. There is no tangible testable evidence, other than their beliefs, for the existence of a Creator God. I do not believe that you can conclusively prove either the existence or the non-existence of God - although I think Stephen may disagree with me about that.<BR/><BR/>However, what really matters is not whether you are rational or justified in believing God exists – the crucial point at issue is the practical consequences of such beliefs. Even a cursory glance at history, and the world situation today, shows that these consequences have been and are on balance far more harmful than beneficial to humanity.<BR/><BR/>As you have come late to this debate, and it is now very long and spread over numerous threads since early December, you may like to spend a while reading through some of the previous posts and comments. You may also like to look at two recent posts of mine in Anticant’s Arena:<BR/><BR/>http://antarena.blogspot.com/2008/01/does-reason-matter.html<BR/><BR/>http://antarena.blogspot.com/2008/01/does-gods-existence-matter.html<BR/><BR/>I’m happy to debate these issues with you, because they are fascinating in themselves, apart from their practical importance, but I do think we need to understand each other’s respective positions if we are to have a useful discussion.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-58381656604495618892008-03-16T10:25:00.000+00:002008-03-16T10:25:00.000+00:00Again I find myself in agreement with you. But lot...Again I find myself in agreement with you. But lots of religious schools are not so bad, and will change for the better if the liberals (so to speak) become relatively stronger, within the religion in question, which they will probably <I>not</I> be able to do if their religion <I>as a whole</I> is under attack.<BR/><BR/>I like that personal belief of yours, which is like the final point that Stephen made in this post; but both Stephen and you seem (at other times) to believe that you are proving something (that seems much) stronger, e.g. <I>that whether or not there’s a God, or indeed, whether or not we are equipped with a sensus divinitatis, we are not rational or justified in believing God exists</I>.<BR/><BR/>It seems that you think that even if there was a God who had <I>made</I> X so that X had that true belief (that there was a God) then for that reason alone X would not be rational. To me, that sounds like someone putting a favoured position (within epistemology) ahead of the facts (which include the self-evident), whence I suggest that <I>you</I> think again.Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-40175306897836656212008-03-16T09:18:00.000+00:002008-03-16T09:18:00.000+00:00Enigman, I wish I could share your optimism that t...Enigman, I wish I could share your optimism that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword, and that ultimately the challenges facing us all in the 21st century will be decided by civilised debate. But I fear that is a luxury that may soon be denied to all of us if the strident bigots who are prepared to use violence to impose their world-view on everyone else are not determinedly checked. <BR/><BR/>The danger of absolute certainty that you are 'right' in believing whatever it is that you believe, without a scintilla of doubt, is that it justifies the use of any means - including violence - to impose your 'truth' upon others: the end justifies the means. This is why I think Ibrahim's teaching his pupils that Islam is a 'given' that may not be questioned is so dangerous.<BR/><BR/>As Cromwell said to the Church of Scotland, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." <BR/><BR/>My personal belief is that anyone who never allows themself to think they may be mistaken is deluded and a social menace.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-50480196683335681902008-03-16T01:32:00.000+00:002008-03-16T01:32:00.000+00:00Hey, maybe reading these comments is having some e...Hey, maybe reading these comments is having some effect on this theist, because I found those last comments agreable...<BR/><BR/>Although my objection, Stephen, was what I took theistic Kyle to be saying, that the degree of excellence of your "excellent grounds" depends upon metaphysical considerations only partially supported by such grounds. I quite agree with that part of that that is that having good evidence that there is no God contributes to the evidence against religious experiences being veridical.<BR/><BR/>One should be (as philosophers are) skeptical of a lot of things (e.g. that time, as we know it, is relativistic, since that is no more supported by the scientific evidence than that space is Euclidean was, a hundred years ago; and that is quite an apposite analogy because there is a role for one's direct knowledge there, and that role is challenged by modern physicalism, but also sensitive to the amount of philosophical analysis, of the concept of time, that one has performed), but I was not invoking a blanket scepticism so far as I am aware.<BR/><BR/>Anticant, I totally agree with you about the socio-political aspects. But I hope that philosophy (conceptual analysis) can help us to see where we agree and what we really disagree about, and shift the socio-political scene away from such "irrationalisms and fanaticisms." And I totally agree that the deepest question here is the relationship between truthful and wishful (although I suspect that it is a philosophically deep question). But maybe we just wish it was the case that truth was more important than mere wishes!<BR/><BR/>Anonymous, the most plausible explanation for the hiddenness of God (which also allows for some genuine mystical experiences) is simultaneously the most plausible explanation for God's allowing of evil (which is <B>The Odyssey Theodicy</B>, for more info click on my pseudonym).Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-48493460569110575982008-03-15T14:09:00.000+00:002008-03-15T14:09:00.000+00:00The mystics who claim they "know god" are rather l...The mystics who claim they "know god" are rather like spiritualist mediums who cash in on people's natural desire to contact their lost loved ones in another world.<BR/><BR/>The question is, Is 'esoteric knowledge' really knowledge in any meaningful sense? Or is it just wish-think? [either sincere, or cynically manipulated by power-seekers.]anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-66047759574699964532008-03-15T12:01:00.000+00:002008-03-15T12:01:00.000+00:00Is God trying to communicate by means of these mys...Is God trying to communicate by means of these mystic experiences?<BR/><BR/>Yes - This presents problems if we maintain God's omnipotence. The communication is far from perfect. To appeal to the idea that God is simply too great to comprehend will not do. God could easily tone things down and explain on our terms. <BR/><BR/>No - <BR/>a) God chooses to remain aloof from us and is successful in doing so In this case the mystical experience cannot be related to God.<BR/>b) the mystics are simply observers of God, catching mere glimpses of glory which God chooses to hide from the majority of the population.<BR/>This again presents problems. It implies that God is imperfect in Her attempts to remain hidden.<BR/>c) the mystic has been singled out by God for a "quick flash" as it were. In which case we are bak to the "yes" ase above. <BR/><BR/>[ A loose summary of some arguments presented in Stanislaw Lem's "Non Serviam" ]<BR/><BR/>The same arguments apply to the aliens. <BR/>If they are as capable as claimed then their behavior is often irrational and downright stupid. But then since the abducted do not make claims of omnipotence and omni-benevolence (those probes!!) we should regard them as more plausible than the mystics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-73351607856388474572008-03-15T07:49:00.000+00:002008-03-15T07:49:00.000+00:00Another thing. A lot of people debating these issu...Another thing. A lot of people debating these issues here seem to have a compulsive need to prove [to themselves, if no-one else] that they are 'right', and that those who disagree with them are 'wrong'. <BR/><BR/>As a commentator on my recent post, 'The need to be right', in Anticant's Arena, said, "While most atheists 'respect' believers at least to the extent that they do not wish to interfere unduly with their beliefs, the problem of course comes the other way round, with believers frequently seeking to impose their views (or the consequences of their views) on others and/or seek privileges for themselves simply on account of their beliefs."<BR/><BR/>It is these social and political consequences of religious belief that impel me to blog here and elsewhere - not the probably insoluble philosophical and intellectual conundrums and verbal quibbles in which some of you take delight. I do not wish to live in a society dominated and disrupted by the irrationalisms and fanaticisms of religious believers who aren't prepared to accept that others have the right to reject their faith, and who go on the - sometimes murderous - rampage when their beliefs are criticised or ridiculed. <BR/><BR/>Religious people are always demanding 'respect', but they should only be entitled to it if they are prepared to respect the beliefs of others who do not share their faiths. Without a mutually agreed level of tolerance, there can be no civilised society; and tolerance cannot be a one-way street.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-36170613667272360902008-03-15T07:45:00.000+00:002008-03-15T07:45:00.000+00:00Hi EnigmanI am not sure I get your objection. I th...Hi Enigman<BR/><BR/>I am not sure I get your objection. I think having a good evidence there is no God *does* contribute to the evidence against religious experiences being veridical.<BR/><BR/>Or are you invoking a blanket scepticism here - Before I help myself to such evidence, I must first show how to defeat the sceptic (while the theistic hypothesis does deal with he sceptic)?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-65510580062340137002008-03-15T07:38:00.000+00:002008-03-15T07:38:00.000+00:00Kyle (the theist one) said: "I don't think that an...Kyle (the theist one) said: "I don't think that anyone other than myself should regard this as evidence. However, if my awareness really is an awareness of God (perhaps through a sensus divinitatis) then it is perfectly rational for me to believe it is true."<BR/><BR/>But Kyle this doesn't follow. I've already come up with cases, e.g. seeing an orange at a magic show, in which, though your perceptual faculties are functioning properly, it is not rational to believe what you "see".<BR/><BR/>You run into similar problems here, it seems to me. Given excellent grounds for supposing both that what you seem to experience is not there, and also that very many people have been deceived under these circumstances, the rational thing for you to do is to be sceptical.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-2763134751700828212008-03-15T07:12:00.000+00:002008-03-15T07:12:00.000+00:00Each of us believes what we believe, and considers...Each of us believes what we believe, and considers [or are convinced] that it is 'true' or 'real'. Our beliefs ARE real for us, but that does not make them 'true' in any wider, more universal sense.<BR/><BR/>Of course God - or Allah, or Jehovah, or Zeus, or Odin, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster - is 'real' for those who believe in them, but that is no evidence for, or proof of, their actual existence. <BR/><BR/>If we are to have a meaningful discussion, we really do need to exercise some verbal discipline, and to utlilse Kyle's three razors.<BR/><BR/>Well, here's my input for what it's worth: I do not believe that there is any credible evidence, apart from the claims of 'believers', that there is such a thing as the "Supernatural", or that the various postulated deities actually exist outside the minds of their devotees.<BR/><BR/>But, like Dr Johnson's sceptical lady, I believe in the universe, and in my own current existence as part of it.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-62341421114378646062008-03-15T04:11:00.000+00:002008-03-15T04:11:00.000+00:00Stephen: irrelevant red herringsKyle: pointing out...Stephen: <I>irrelevant red herrings</I><BR/><BR/>Kyle: <I>pointing out how crazy religious people are is beyond the point because your belief that many of them are crazy is based on your belief that they are wrong</I><BR/><BR/>Plantinga: <I>suppose theistic belief is true: then we human beings have been created by a loving God who would be interested in our knowing about him, and would almost certainly have provided a way by which we could come to know him and know about him. He would therefore have created us in such a way that under the right conditions we would come to know him and know about him. Since many of us (again, assuming that theism is true) do in fact know him and know about him, the natural thing to think, surely, is that the processes or faculties by which these beliefs are formed are functioning properly in the sort of environment for which they were designed; further, they are successfully aimed at the production of true belief, i.e. those beliefs involved in knowing God and knowing something about him. If theistic belief is true, therefore, then in all probability it meets the conditions of warrant; on the other hand, if it is false, then in all probability it does not meet those conditions.</I><BR/><BR/>Me: Stephen, in your last lines (in both these posts) you do seem to assume what you have seemed to deny you assume, when you conclude that even oneself should not believe the direct evidence of one's own senses. Now sure, the accounts we read, of the religious experiences of others, are prima facie like those of UFO abductees (at least for me they are, since I don't rule out robot-aliens, or divine revelations, and God is odd, and aliens probably are too; and most such accounts are clearly mostly literally false), but it is all testimony, you know... linguistic accounts of intrinsically complex experiences, with so many unknowns (the more you think about it, the more of them you notice, of more and more kinds, you know)... It is much more straightforward in the case of one's own experiences; or the testimony of an exceptionally reliable person who you know directly very well. And from such possibilities, in the background (amongst others of course), one can apply one's judgement about an actual case, but surely only in the light of <I>all</I> the relevant data (e.g. were the scribes copying the accounts prejudiced, or afraid of what others might think, etc. etc.), at least if one wants to be fair, and rational, and of course, a big part of how that background data contributes to your assessment of any particular set of testimonies (which are not often either fully believed or fully disbelieved of course) is how likely there is to be a Creator of all this... and that <I>is</I> affected by your position on the atheism/theism continuum (which position might be due in part to how much store you have put by testimony, quite coherently). It all gets very complicated of course, more so in the theistic case than in the alienistic case, but it is your analogy, your conclusion, and so they are your complications (you must show that they are on a par those two cases), I'd guess...Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-84040711067139862392008-03-15T04:08:00.000+00:002008-03-15T04:08:00.000+00:00Hey Kyle 1.0 (or maybe 2.0. I've been here a while...Hey Kyle 1.0 (or maybe 2.0. I've been here a while, had just been gone for a while also! Doesn't matter, either way). I'll change my name to something else here in a moment, but for now I have to ask a clarification. You said,<BR/><BR/>"...if my awareness really is an awareness of God (perhaps through a sensus divinitatis) then it is perfectly rational for me to believe it is true."<BR/><BR/>But since you can't determine whether or not this awareness is really of your god, then how can you say it is rational to believe? It seems you may be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.<BR/><BR/>The next part is completely unrelated to your posts, Kyle 1.5.0.1.<BR/>Based on the occasional poster's comments, I've come up with a proposal. I am calling it the Blowhard Proposal. I will first state the proposal, then show its foundation:<BR/><BR/>We should not believe something that has no foundation, is utterly confusing, and is without falsifiability, especially if it requires believing something<BR/>supernatural, when a natural explanation fits just as well or better.<BR/><BR/>This is based on three "razors".<BR/><BR/>1) Occam's Razor - This one is the best-known. It basically states that a supernatural explanation for something which has just as good natural explanations merely becomes superfluous.<BR/>2) Russel's Razor - I'm not sure if I made that name up, but it's based on Bertrand Russel's, "We should not believe anything for which there is not sufficient evidence to believe it."<BR/>3) Kyle's Razor - Mine, which is something like, "When discussing something, we should be as clear and precise as possible with our terms to avoid confusion, and promote actually dealing with the issues."Kyle Szklenskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03837443487933011691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-86982097162570086172008-03-14T23:28:00.000+00:002008-03-14T23:28:00.000+00:00I've been away for a while, I'm sorry to be absent...I've been away for a while, I'm sorry to be absent. I've also noticed that there is someone else called Kyle posting. This is very confusing.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I think there is some confusion over appeals to 'religious experience'.<BR/><BR/>I don't speak on behave of all theists, but I would never argue anything like: I have had a religious experience, therefore you should believe in God.<BR/><BR/>I don't think anyone elses claim to have had a mystical experience can be used as evidence for anyone else.<BR/><BR/>The way I do think such experiences can play a role is to confirm someone for oneself.<BR/><BR/>I consider my belief in God to be perfectly natural, that is I am aware of it in an immediate way from the way I see the world and my encounters with scripture etc..<BR/><BR/>I don't think that anyone other than myself should regard this as evidence. However, if my awareness really is an awareness of God (perhaps through a sensus divinitatis) then it is perfectly rational for me to believe it is true.<BR/><BR/>I only cite such an experience against the charge that is often levelled against me, that my belief is simply irrational, whether true or not because I can't present publicly checkable evidence.<BR/><BR/>How does this advance the debate, you might ask. Well, it means that pointing out how crazy religious people are is beyond the point because your belief that many of them are crazy is based on your belief that they are wrong.<BR/><BR/>I believe that people who claim to have been abducted by aliens are deluded because I believe they are wrong. This means that if I want to have a really serious discussion about whether or not aliens exist then pointing to all the crazy people who claim to have been abducted won't help my case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-77485904434829421852008-03-14T20:58:00.000+00:002008-03-14T20:58:00.000+00:00Enigman: Why must it be extremely small?Most of th...Enigman: <B>Why must it be extremely small?</B><BR/><BR/>Most of the stars in our galaxy are located near the center. Even if these stars have planets, their close proximity does not make for a longterm stable environment. Most of the stars are red dwarfs. I think when it's all considered, the probability of an advanced alien civilization is extremely small (in our galaxy).NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-69800619769723681112008-03-14T11:57:00.000+00:002008-03-14T11:57:00.000+00:00Is there any correlation between religious mystica...Is there any correlation between religious mystical experience and alien abduction?<BR/><BR/>Do we find that the two are mutually exclusive or that people reporting either are more prone to report both?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-77715116249948505332008-03-14T11:40:00.000+00:002008-03-14T11:40:00.000+00:00Anon, this is the previous poster. Changed my nick...Anon, this is the previous poster. Changed my nickname for a little anonymity (but don't mind your post). As it so happens, I did tell both my mother (who herself has had some mystical experiences), and a priest. <BR/><BR/>When I was a Catholic, oh yes I thought it was very mystical! At the time, though, I wasn't really a person thinking about it as a proof for god's existence. Indeed, it made me think about the term god in a wholly different way.<BR/><BR/>In some sense, it is what started me on the path to pure atheism. What happened to me in "this other place" (what I used to refer to it as) made me realize that hey, there's a LOT more to the brain than the credit I normally give it. If it was my soul leaving my body and doing that stuff, then how could I see or do anything at all? It had to be something physical in nature, rather than soul-related. That was the first crack in the armor that was my Catholicism.Kyle Szklenskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03837443487933011691noreply@blogger.com