Arriving at a Theistic Belief

[mikkel_the_dane]

We can start with the Bible's extraordinary prescience, much of it verifiable since it concerns Israel since 1948!

I am not a part of your "we". I believe differently.

 

[Sheldon]

If you believe that material existence is all there is, then you will naturally try to explain or understand all phenomena in those terms.

Well I can't speak for others, but this is not a belief I hold, as the concept is unfalsifiable and so I must remain an agnostic, but I also disbelieve all unfalsifiable claims, and claims for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated.

I understand that modern science has made considerable progress in monitoring the way sensation, experience, and response to stimuli register in the brain. Clearly, this does not mean the experience originates in the brain,

Of course it does, in every single example we have a functioning human brain is a necessary component, if the brain dies the consciousness ceases to be observed that very instant, if the brain is damaged, then the area of the brain damaged results on the loss of specific functions. However more importantly there is not one shred of objective evidence for the idea human consciousness can exist without a fully functioning human brain.

nor that the entire kaleidoscopic range of human experience can be viewed purely as a neurological function. At the very least, you must accept that the measurable neurological response originates normally as a result of sensory stimuli. The brain is responding to something, it is not manufacturing the experience itself; except, as you argue, in the case of hallucination.

Well the stimuli are natural, and obviously the brain evolved to perfectly match that, that's how natural selection works. As far as hallucinations are concerned, the human brain doesn't always function perfectly. Like stories of near death experiences, it's not hard to see that a dying brain being starved of oxygen is less reliable at receiving and storing data. Throw in the inevitable chicanery some of them involve, and subjective bias, and the stories are not as remarkable as they are portrayed.

Hallucinations are generally accompanied by a range of other pathologies. When a person betraying other symptoms of psychosis tells us they have been receiving messages from God, we can perhaps dismiss this as a hallucination. When a person tells us that they have had a profound spiritual experience which has led them to a new, infinitely more satisfying and productive way of living than they had been capable of before, we would do well to at least look at the evidence with an open mind.

What evidence?

Here is one example;

"...Confined in a hospital [our friend's] gorge rose as he bitterly called out: "If there is a God, he hasn't done much for me!"
But later, alone in his room...like a thunderbolt, a great thought came. It crowded out all else:
'Who are you to say there is no God?'
This man recounts that hs tumbled out of bed to his knees. In a few seconds he was overwhelmed by a conviction of the Presence of God. It poured over and through him with the certainty and majesty of a great tide at flood. The barriers he had built through the years were swept away. He stood in the Presence of Infinite Power and Love..."

Again, what evidence? I see a story that may or may not have happened as described, and if it happened exactly as described is no more compelling than any other unevidenced anecdotal claim? Am I to believe who are convinced they were beamed aboard a space ship, because they are convinced it happened?

Easy enough to dismiss the experience above as a hallucination if you are so inclined.

I don't need to make assertions about it, as I said all that was offered was an unevidenced story, that at best involved an unevidenced anecdotal claim?

But consider this; the man who had that experience walked out of an institution whose doctors had pronounced him a hopeless case, and never went back there.

So what? Right up front doctors can be wrong, though I don't see any evidence of what the diagnosis was, or any solid medical evidence anything remarkable happened, and even were these supported by sufficient objective evidence, all I see is something you're implying can't be explained, inexplicable events may peak our curiosity, but they don't represent evidence of anything.

Instead, a once hopeless drunk, he went on to lead a full and productive life characterised by love and service towards others. If his experience was really just a hallucination, wouldn't we expect it to have led him in the opposite direction - not out of a psychiatric ward, but into one?

That's it? My parents ran a pub, and one of the customers was tee total and had been for years, after he was admitted to hospital and told he would not being going home the nest time if he carried on drinking. The doctor told him he'd have to stay out of pubs as he would never be able to stop drinking otherwise. He stopped drinking but kept going to pubs as he liked the company. He was an atheist in his 50's and I was in my early twenties, and he was a fascinating character. Just because someone assigns their life changing actions to a deity, is not evidence of a deity. Even if they are convinced otherwise.

That man's experience is by no means a one off be, I've personally met and spoken with many like him. History and literature is replete with other examples; Tolstoy's account of Prince Andrei's epiphany at the dressing station during the Battle of Borodino being imo one of the most transcendent passages of writing in the Western canon.

it is not however objective evidence for any deity.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Wow. A "veil" of empirical rationality. As if that's a bad thing.

It is a bad thing, imo. It implies that only that which can be shown to exist through scientific observation can be acceptable as evidence to rational human beings.
That is false.

We are able to evaluate historical phenomena, and make reasonable conclusions. That does not entail empirical observation.

 

[Sheldon]

To say, “If we can’t measure it, it doesn’t exist”, is an example of Logical Positivism, a philosophical perspective now largely discredited as solipsistic.

You keep doing this, reversing the burden of proof. If there is no data or any objective evidence then I would disbelieve your claim it exists, I don't need to make any contrary claims to unfalsifiable concepts.

FWIW all non existent things are empirically undetectable, make of that what you will.

 

[Sheldon]

The initial argument was that because millions of people claim to have experienced x, x is therefore true.
That is classic ad pop.

Precisely, when you point out that a subjective anecdotal claim is not evidence, a bare appeal to the number of people making the claim is cited. It is off course an irrational argument.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Of course it does, in every single example we have a functioning human brain is a necessary component, if the brain dies the consciousness ceases to be observed that very instant..

You can't observe a consciousness other than your own. You can only see that which is apparent.

What we do know, is that we are aware right now. If it can happen once, then it can happen again. How it might happen is not really the point.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You keep doing this, reversing the burden of proof. If there is no data or any objective evidence then I would disbelieve your claim it exists, I don't need to make any contrary claims to unfalsifiable concepts.

FWIW all non existent things are empirically undetectable, make of that what you will.

And all abstract concepts don't exist like money and evidence. Or reason, proof and what not. It even applies to the word "exist". Are you becoming a believer?

 

[Sheldon]

Does that apply to people who have experienced something that you haven't? Are you suggesting that their experiences are only their opinion, and you know that their experiences weren't real?

I know you have not demonstrated any objective evidence this is anything more than bare opinion. When this was pointed out you immediately made a bare appeal to numbers, an argumentum ad populum fallacy. trying to reverse the burden of proof with a post ad hoc rationalisation isn't going to change the fact that was an irrational argument. Nor do I need to disprove your claim or make any contrary assertions, I simply withhold belief from claims that are unsupported by any objective evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Precisely, when you point out that a subjective anecdotal claim is not evidence, a bare appeal to the number of people making the claim is cited. It is off course an irrational argument.

I can't see an irrational argument. It has no objective observable properties, so it doesn't exist. You are really becoming a believer.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Precisely, when you point out that a subjective anecdotal claim is not evidence, a bare appeal to the number of people making the claim is cited. It is off course an irrational argument.

No, it isn't. It is more complex than you suggest.
Either all these people are being irrational, or there is something more going on.
Do these people have no reason for their beliefs?
I don't think so. They have reasons, that you wish to deny as being rational.

You usually do this by crying "fallacy", and terminating the debate.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I know you have not demonstrated any objective evidence this is anything more than bare opinion. When this was pointed out you immediately made a bare appeal to numbers, an argumentum ad populum fallacy. trying to reverse the burden of proof with a post ad hoc rationalisation isn't going to change the fact that was an irrational argument. Nor do I need to disprove your claim or make any contrary assertions, I simply withhold belief from claims that are unsupported by any objective evidence.

I can't see beliefs as they are in the mind and don't exist. Are you becoming a believer?

 

[Sheldon]

It is a bad thing, imo.

Bare opinion vs adherence to logic, you may find that compelling I do not. As I don't give credence to irrational claims or arguments.

It implies that only that which can be shown to exist through scientific observation can be acceptable as evidence to rational human beings.
That is false.

It is a straw man fallacy, an attempt to reverse the burden of proof here. As I need not hold a contrary belief or make a contrary claim, I can simply disbelieve your assertions, as you have failed to demonstrate anything beyond unevidenced anecdotal claims.

We are able to evaluate historical phenomena, and make reasonable conclusions. That does not entail empirical observation.

It doesn't, archaeologists geologists and historians might be stunned to learn this. Just because we didn't physically see a historical event happen, does not necessarily mean there is no empirical evidence.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You keep doing this, reversing the burden of proof. If there is no data or any objective evidence then I would disbelieve your claim it exists, I don't need to make any contrary claims to unfalsifiable concepts.

FWIW all non existent things are empirically undetectable, make of that what you will.

There is no burden of proof here Sheldon, we are neither in a court of law nor are we conducting an experiment under laboratory conditions.

As for your needs, whatever they may be, I feel no compunction to try to meet them; that is something you may do for yourself.

 

[Sheldon]

You can't observe a consciousness other than your own. You can only see that which is apparent.

You're saying I can't observe other humans and conscious animals, being aware of and responsive to their surroundings? Of course I can.

What we do know, is that we are aware right now. If it can happen once, then it can happen again. How it might happen is not really the point.

We know how it happens, as I said human consciousness in every single instance only observed with a functioning human brain, if that brain is damaged that consciousness is impaired, and precisely in a way that matches the area of the brain damaged, and when the brain dies that consciousness disappears at that precise moment. Beyond bare unevidenced assertion, what can you demonstrate to support your claim human consciousness can exist without a functioning human brain, as so far you've offered nothing and so I disbelieve the claim.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Precisely, when you point out that a subjective anecdotal claim is not evidence, a bare appeal to the number of people making the claim is cited. It is off course an irrational argument.

No, it isn't. It is more complex than you suggest. Either all these people are being irrational, or there is something more going on.

You don't get to rewrite the principles of logic, I don't need to know anything about the bare claim for experience, only that you made a bare appeal to numbers when you couldn't demonstrate any objective evidence for that claim.

Do these people have no reason for their beliefs?
I don't think so. They have reasons, that you wish to deny as being rational.

I have done nothing of the sort, your bare appeal to numbers is what I cited as irrational, I never claimed the unevidenced anecdotal claim was irrational.

You usually do this by crying "fallacy", and terminating the debate.

Citing logic doesn't terminate debate. Something either does or does not adhere to the principles of logic, and a core principle is that nothing can asserted as rational if it uses or is based on a known logical fallacy, you used a known logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum. Ipso facto that claim was irrational. the rest is just a straw man you've created. If you don't like someone pointing out a claim is irrational then don't resort to known logical fallacies.

 

[Sheldon]

There is no burden of proof here Sheldon, we are neither in a court of law nor are we conducting an experiment under laboratory conditions.

All claims and beliefs carry an epistemological burden of proof, The second part is a straw man, as I made no such claim. If you want to make claims and feel you needn't offer any evidence that's your right, but I will disbelieve them and say why. However this misses the point as you were implying the burden of proof lay with people who disbelieved your claim, and that is an irrational argument. Logically one does not need to disprove a claim, or offer any alterative.

As for your needs, whatever they may be, I feel no compunction to try to meet them; that is something you may do for yourself.

I never said you had to meet them, I merely point out that I am compelled to withhold belief in the complete absence of anything beyond unevidenced subjective assertion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't get to rewrite the principles of logic, I don't need to know anything about the bare claim for experience, only that you made a bare appeal to numbers when you couldn't demonstrate any objective evidence for that claim.
...

Correct, that is a fact of the world. That is in the end the problem. If I do something subjective, I don't have to give objective evidence.
Now as long as I can do it subjectively, I can even subjectively claim it is objective. That is also a fact.

The problem is that your world view doesn't work, because people are still subjective, no matter how much you subjectively demand objective evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All claims and beliefs carry an epistemological burden of proof, .../QUOTE]

That is your subjective belief and norm.

 

[RestlessSoul]

All claims and beliefs carry an epistemological burden of proof, The second part is a straw man, as I made no such claim. If you want to make claims and feel you needn't offer any evidence that's your right, but I will disbelieve them and say why. However this misses the point as you were implying the burden of proof lay with people who disbelieved your claim, and that is an irrational argument. Logically one does not need to disprove a claim, or offer any alterative.



I never said you had to meet them, I merely point out that I am compelled to withhold belief in the complete absence of anything beyond unevidenced subjective assertion.

You are free to believe as you choose to believe, and to give your reasons if you wish. You are equally free to extend that courtesy to others, if you see fit to do so.

Using logic and reason to lever people out of beliefs not arrived at by that method, is likely to prove futile. You are obviously of at least average if not above average intelligence, yet you seem a little tardy in learning this lesson.

 

[muhammad_isa]

you used a known logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum. Ipso facto that claim was irrational..

What nonsense.
If you can't think of anything more convincing, resort to argumentum ad populum..

That says nothing about the validity of a particular argument, it just states that it is not necessarily true.
Whoopee!