Of stampcollectors and atheists

[Myles]

iceaura
“

the nature of something that appears greatly wondrous to a person is not an "invention"
“

I think what you have missed is that people are predisposed to search out what is wondrous ....

Two points in response to the above:

"something that appears greatly wonderous ..." is an invention of the human mind; it is not wonderous in itself.

"people are predisposed to search out what is wonderous" I would say we are curious and our curiosity impels us to explore. Some of what we find we may regard as wonderous but it is not necessarily so by common consent. One man's wonder may be another man's everyday event, depending on time , place and circumstances.

 

[lightgigantic]

In my experience and from what I can infer from others. Transcendence seems more of an emotional state or gestalt experience rather than an actual state of knowing. Not that I don't value it, I do. I believe it often provides insight. But it seems to be more a state of imaginative awareness than epiphany or revelation.

~Raithere

inference as a means of approaching a subject is by necessity broad and possibly even unfounded

 

[iceaura]

the nature of something that appears greatly wondrous to a person is not an "invention"

And the more ludicrous beliefs incorporated into religions are not "wondrous" in their original nature.

Something you invented as a mockery easily blends in with the panoply of religious ritual - that's the point. And with only a few small changes in historical precedent we could be looking for a definition of the word for the category of "all people who do not believe that the stoner cow-sex God exists in reality" - abeastialists, perhaps ? - and the beleaguered minority of abeastialists would be hearing people question their empathy and kindness, their family ties, their love of animals as a basic foundation for their love of anyone or anything, their condescending attitude toward sincere believers who derive strength and hope from their faith, their appreciation of the wondrous nature of cow-ass, and so forth.

 

[lightgigantic]

And the more ludicrous beliefs incorporated into religions are not "wondrous" in their original nature.

Something you invented as a mockery easily blends in with the panoply of religious ritual - that's the point. And with only a few small changes in historical precedent we could be looking for a definition of the word for the category of "all people who do not believe that the stoner cow-sex God exists in reality" - abeastialists, perhaps ? - and the beleaguered minority of abeastialists would be hearing people question their empathy and kindness, their family ties, their love of animals as a basic foundation for their love of anyone or anything, their condescending attitude toward sincere believers who derive strength and hope from their faith, their appreciation of the wondrous nature of cow-ass, and so forth.

erm, and once again, the nature of something that appears greatly wondrous to a person is not an "invention"
and the point of assembling wondrous things (both real and apparent) in a linear fashion is the subject of theistic philosophical analysis - hence even santarians and santerians can be placed somewhere.

 

[iceaura]

and the point of assembling wondrous things (both real and apparent) in a linear fashion is the subject of theistic philosophical analysis

Now if someone like myself were to describe "theistic philosophical analysis" as the pursuit of some such absurdity, I do believe they would be accused of mudslinging.

I know Dawkins has been, for similar description.

We are going to assemble wondrous things (meaning anything anyone worships?) in a "linear fashion" (? I'm not even going to guess), and that is going to be analysis, and theism is involved. Also philosophy.

 

[lightgigantic]

Now if someone like myself were to describe "theistic philosophical analysis" as the pursuit of some such absurdity, I do believe they would be accused of mudslinging.

I know Dawkins has been, for similar description.

We are going to assemble wondrous things (meaning anything anyone worships?) in a "linear fashion" (? I'm not even going to guess), and that is going to be analysis, and theism is involved. Also philosophy.

Not sure why you have problems with it, since you have already begun the path of analysis by establishing how some things in theistic practices are not in and of themselves wondrous.

The only problem I can see is that you stop it there and insist on using such examples as the final last word in theistic revelation ( a technique commonly called judging a genre by its worst stereotype) - if you think the argument "some people are getting it wrong therefore everyone is getting it wrong" is laudable, you can effectively dismantle any discipline of knowledge.
Needless to say, philosophy is not Dawkin's strong suit ....

 

[Raithere]

inference as a means of approaching a subject is by necessity broad and possibly even unfounded

You'll note that I mentioned experience as well. Aside from that, all we can do regarding other people's experience is infer.

~Raithere

 

[iceaura]

Not sure why you have problems with it, since you have already begun the path of analysis by establishing how some things in theistic practices are not in and of themselves wondrous.

I don't see how I did that. As far as I have even begun to establish, everything in theistic practice is equivalently therefore wondrous to the unprejudiced eye.

The only problem I can see is that you stop it there and insist on using such examples as the final last word in theistic revelation ( a technique commonly called judging a genre by its worst stereotype)

I call it evaluating a method by its results, or an argument by its conclusions.

if you think the argument "some people are getting it wrong therefore everyone is getting it wrong" is laudable, you can effectively dismantle any discipline of knowledge.

But if I think the argument "these people are getting it right, and this BS is what they are getting" is valid criticism of "it", only some disciplines of knowledge are vulnerable to dismantling.

 

[lightgigantic]

You'll note that I mentioned experience as well. Aside from that, all we can do regarding other people's experience is infer.

~Raithere

then I guess a further issue would be to examine your experience and to what extent we should accept it as valid. For instance, calling upon my experience in computer electronics probably wouldn't be sufficient to detail all that the field has to offer, even though I have taken the cover off my CPU and stuck my nose in on quite a few occasions ......

 

[lightgigantic]

Iceaura

Originally Posted by LG
Not sure why you have problems with it, since you have already begun the path of analysis by establishing how some things in theistic practices are not in and of themselves wondrous.
”
I don't see how I did that. As far as I have even begun to establish, everything in theistic practice is equivalently therefore wondrous to the unprejudiced eye.

thats my point
if you actually want to establish something about theism, why don't you examine it in full rather than trying to pass off some findings in the lower rung (animism for eg)as indicative of what takes place on the higher rung (monism for eg)?
“

Originally Posted by LG
The only problem I can see is that you stop it there and insist on using such examples as the final last word in theistic revelation ( a technique commonly called judging a genre by its worst stereotype)
”
I call it evaluating a method by its results, or an argument by its conclusions.

aka = judging a genre by its worst stereotype
“

Originally Posted by LG
if you think the argument "some people are getting it wrong therefore everyone is getting it wrong" is laudable, you can effectively dismantle any discipline of knowledge.
”
But if I think the argument "these people are getting it right, and this BS is what they are getting" is valid criticism of "it", only some disciplines of knowledge are vulnerable to dismantling.

the problem arises when you extrapolate from animism to theism in its entirety

 

[Raithere]

then I guess a further issue would be to examine your experience and to what extent we should accept it as valid. For instance, calling upon my experience in computer electronics probably wouldn't be sufficient to detail all that the field has to offer, even though I have taken the cover off my CPU and stuck my nose in on quite a few occasions ......

How does one presume to evaluate subjective experience? That almost sounds like a joke to me. Experience is what it is.

~Raithere

 

[lightgigantic]

How does one presume to evaluate subjective experience? That almost sounds like a joke to me. Experience is what it is.

~Raithere

while the notion of quality control in academia can seem a joke at times, it nonetheless is effective in separating metal shop from the biology class rooms

 

[Raithere]

while the notion of quality control in academia can seem a joke at times, it nonetheless is effective in separating metal shop from the biology class rooms

Nonsense.

If my experience upon tasting a mango is that it is cloying, musky, and unpleasant. And you experience is that it is sweet and refreshing. Upon what grounds may one experience be evaluated against another?

~Raithere

 

[lightgigantic]

Nonsense.

If my experience upon tasting a mango is that it is cloying, musky, and unpleasant. And you experience is that it is sweet and refreshing. Upon what grounds may one experience be evaluated against another?

~Raithere

If I hand you a petrified fish head and tell you it is a mango, you may not accept my subjective experience as valid

 

[Sarkus]

If I hand you a petrified fish head and tell you it is a mango, you may not accept my subjective experience as valid

Two things.

Firstly... you telling someone that the petrified fish head is a mango is merely a claim - NOT an experience - and a claim I think you would find difficult to support.

If you experience the fish head as a mango (i.e. experience the sight, feel, taste and smell etc of the fish head as others do a mango) - then okay - THIS would be difficult for one to invalidate, however weird. THIS is subjective experience.

Secondly, in the example you give you would actually be delusional and should seek medical help - as one can happily subject the object to rigourous testing (i.e. compilation of evidence) to demonstrate that it factually is a petrified fish head. And as we all know, delusion is holding something as true despite being factually incorrect.

This isn't to say that what you "experience" (the taste, smell, feel etc) is invalid - only that the "experience" is most likely based on abnormal brain-function and could lead to incorrect conclusions whenever the false assumption is used. Which can be dangerous (experiencing a continuing walkway when actually there is a 100-ft drop, for example).


So you might believe you "experience God" (or the presence of God, or whatever) - and this is your interpretation of the very real (presumably) "experiences" that you have - just like believing the fish-head is a mango.

For you to make the claim that it is God you are experiencing, however, and expect others to accept it, requires more.

 

[lightgigantic]

Two things.

Firstly... you telling someone that the petrified fish head is a mango is merely a claim - NOT an experience - and a claim I think you would find difficult to support.

If you experience the fish head as a mango (i.e. experience the sight, feel, taste and smell etc of the fish head as others do a mango) - then okay - THIS would be difficult for one to invalidate, however weird. THIS is subjective experience.

Secondly, in the example you give you would actually be delusional and should seek medical help - as one can happily subject the object to rigourous testing (i.e. compilation of evidence) to demonstrate that it factually is a petrified fish head. And as we all know, delusion is holding something as true despite being factually incorrect.

This isn't to say that what you "experience" (the taste, smell, feel etc) is invalid - only that the "experience" is most likely based on abnormal brain-function and could lead to incorrect conclusions whenever the false assumption is used. Which can be dangerous (experiencing a continuing walkway when actually there is a 100-ft drop, for example).


So you might believe you "experience God" (or the presence of God, or whatever) - and this is your interpretation of the very real (presumably) "experiences" that you have - just like believing the fish-head is a mango.

For you to make the claim that it is God you are experiencing, however, and expect others to accept it, requires more.

or alternatively, your interpretation of the nature of god's non-existence is like declaring a petrified fish head to be a mango

(the nature of tentative arguments is that the evidence they pivot on is flexible enough to drive home an opposite conclusion)

 

[Myles]

or alternatively, your interpretation of the nature of god's non-existence is like declaring a petrified fish head to be a mango

(the nature of tentative arguments is that the evidence they pivot on is flexible enough to drive home an opposite conclusion)

God doesn't exist, so it i nonsensense to talk of the nature of hos non-existence or the nature of anythingelse's non-existence. By definition, anything which does not exist can have no attributes.

 

[John99]

It is an educated guess, an assumption - yes, but one with some merit.

 

[lightgigantic]

God doesn't exist, so it i nonsensense to talk of the nature of hos non-existence or the nature of anythingelse's non-existence. By definition, anything which does not exist can have no attributes.

hence the beginning proposal is that god exists and has attributes
:shrug:

 

[Raithere]

If I hand you a petrified fish head and tell you it is a mango, you may not accept my subjective experience as valid

I didn't bother to respond yet because Sarkus did such a very good job. However, it seems you still miss the point. My experience still cannot be evaluated by you. You can only point out that I have a fish head in my mouth and not a piece of mango. This doesn't invalidate my experience, only what I relate that experience to.

Now then, assuming I understand where you'd like this analogy to go, what fish head will you point to if I tell you my transcendent experiences differ from yours? What mango can you give me so I can share in your experience? And assuming you can give me a mango for me to taste, upon what grounds can we determine that the fish head experience is any more or less valuable, real, or true than the mango experience? More to the point, what if I take your mango and still don't like it?

~Raithere