Why naturalism is irrational (page 20)

OldSoul

Oh, and rem, this part was definitely not in fun or part of a word game:

It is when you infer to others that I am or may be deluded that you then have a responsibity to either retract, or falsify my belief, as a function of proving your claim.

Inference of delusion is an ad hominem attack unless you can falsify my belief. In my opinion, it is dismissive and extremely disrespectful language, not befitting the bulk of my posts in this thread. If you want to play word games, I am an adequate sparring partner, but mostly I would like some mutual respect clearly evidenced.

OldSoul

Midget-Sasquatch

Cygnus has a good point. Isn't reality for all of us essentially in our minds?

We interpret the perception of what they are doing by the effects created,
we cannot see them. This is an example of subtractive observation only,
determination of cause by observed effect is not observation of cause.

Once you are done having fun with that, imagine that I say they are just
metaphorical constructs we use for interpretting observed phenomenon in
physical reality that we assign labels to so we can pretend they are real
in terms of Science.

Just how much more direct are our own perceptions really? In a sense, isn't
everything that we "perceive" a construction from effects? The object that we
"see" in front of us is a result of photons that reflected off of it and then
shone onto our retina (the image is now upside down), was converted to neural
impulses and then those impulses are processed in the visual cortex so that the
brain constructs a rightside up representation of the object. Is there a crucial
difference then when we resort to using artificial instrumentation and subtractive
observations? I wouldn't hold our own senses as being inherently superior
to artificial ones in principle. So I don't have a strong reason to give greater value
to the perceptions of a mystic vs the instruments trained on his/her brain by doctors
studying that experience.

OldSoul

Midget-Sasquatch,

That's actually been my point the entire time. If our entire understanding of reality is based on perceptions, what possible basis could someone have for claiming my unfalsifiable perceptions are delusional?

That was a good point about the subtractive observation being not discernibly better or worse than direct observation. I agree, but I don't think that in any way bolsters an argument for disbelief in God or a spirit realm. I think it has the opposite effect.

So I don't have a strong reason to give greater value to the perceptions of a mystic vs the instruments trained on his/her brain by doctors studying that experience.

There are no instruments that can record the human experience. Therefore, doctors (scientists) can't study the experience, they can only study the effects of the experience on the brain.

This is another indication there is some difficulty being able to distinguish what we can do from what we can't do.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

Cygnus

I'm full of good points, I just don't get too involved in the debates anymore cause I have my mind made up - although it's subject to change if given the proper specifics I require.

Right now I'm watching a documentary on a legal prostitution "bunny ranch" in Nevada on HBO. It's pretty stupid how people act when sex is the most important thing in their life....... but I'm as much as a jerk for watching it. ;)

OldSoul

I like what Danny Bonaducci (spelling?) said about his show. Something to the effect that his life was a train wreck, and he couldn't blame anyone for wanting to slow down and take a look.

So, maybe you aren't a jerk, Cygnus. Unless you are holding up traffic to look .

Respectfully,
OldSoul

rem

Oldsoul,

>> Inference of delusion is an ad hominem attack unless you can falsify my belief.

It's not meant as an attack, just an observation... if a person believes in the spiritual realm then he or she is probably deluded. (In my opinion he or she is deluded) I'm not using the observation against you as it relates to your argumentation in this thread, so I'm not sure how it's relevant. If I were to do that, it would be an ad hominem logical fallacy.

>> In my opinion, it is dismissive and extremely disrespectful language, not befitting the bulk of my posts in this thread. If you want to play word games, I am an adequate sparring partner, but mostly I would like some mutual respect clearly evidenced.

I understand that it is not a positive thing to have people believe you are deluded. That is why I do my best to not hold beliefs that are most probably false. The scientific method, logic, and Occham's Razor are useful tools in this endeavor.

That being said, I've never said that delusion has anything to do with intelligence and your above average intelligence is quite apparent. For that I do have respect.

rem

OldSoul

In my opinion he or she is deluded

I believe in the spirit realm. QED, your belief is that I am deluded. Let's not mince words, shall we? That is why I stressed what the word delusion means. Because if it is a fact that if you cannot falsify my belief, I am not deluded.

Can you falsify my belief? If not, then your opinion (belief) is falsified by the definition of the word delusion. And no, that isn't a word game, it is a fact.

Please, since you insist on perpetuating your unproven assertion, falsify my belief. If you fail, you have been deluded. Hopefully you will recover, but I am holding out less hope for that after your latest post. You seem defensive of your logically indefensible position. [edited to add]

if a person believes in the spiritual realm then he or she is probably deluded

I wonder if you know what probably means as a qualifier in this context? If you read what you wrote carefully, it could be reworded this way without loosing one whit of denotation or connotation: "if a person believes in the spiritual real, then he or she is more likely than not suffering from a falsifiable belief." If you can't falsify belief in a spirit realm is it intellectually honest to assert that is likely that such belief can be falsified? Not in my opinion. Ockham's Razor would say, no, as well. OldSoul

rem

Oldsoul,

So basically what you are saying with your strict interpretation of the word deluded is that the following sentence is not valid:

"That person who believes he created the world and all of my memories last tuesday is probably deluded."

If you believe that is not a valid assertion, then perhaps we need another word that means almost the exact same thing as deluded, but not quite. You are the wordsmith... I'm just a normal guy.

If there is no appropriate word, then it's simply a limitation of the English language. At this point I feel like we are just quibbling over semantics.

rem

OldSoul

Technically, you can't falsify his claim. I am not aware of any such cases, but there are many kinds of mental illnesses aside from delusion.

Did the guy create the world last Tuesday, and all your memories with it? Seriously, in this example there is an incredible amount of evidence to the contrary. In the example of a spiritual realm, you have no contraindicative data at all so delusion would be a very poor choice of word indeed. Maybe what you mean is simply that you disagree?

OldSoul

the_classicist

I believe in the spirit realm. QED, your belief is that I am deluded. Let's not mince words, shall we? That is why I stressed what the word delusion means. Because if it is a fact that if you cannot falsify my belief, I am not deluded.

From the Lockean sense of human knowledge, all knowledge comes in through either sensation (through the sense) or through advention; innate ideas do not exist.

Since God has not directly shown himself in whatever form it may be to me, I must conclude that my idea of God is received through mine or someone else's advention. It follows that we have no reason whatsoever to believe in God.

Why naturalism is irrational

Share this