There might be a fundamental difference between memorization and inductive logic. For instance, a dog might memorize the sound of the doorbell and know the food dude is home. That's like, well, Pavlov's dog. Which is instinctual.
But say for example that whenever the food dude goes on a multi-day hiatus (so that the dog must go a day or two without getting fed) he always rides his motorcycle home from work (the food dude not the dog). Memorizing this fact, when food dude open the pantry, loads up the food bowl, and starts toward the patio, the dog quickly and undetected grabs the food bag and stashes it under a chair where food dude can't see it so that while the feeder is gone, the dog can eat anyway.
At this point, memorization, and instinct, both of which are quasi-natural, get transcended by non-inductive thought. In Popper's parlance nothing whatsoever, regardless of memorization, or instinct, causes the dog to use his reasoning in a way to out-think food dude, memorization, and instinct. Nothing natural, logical, instinctual, is behind the dog taking things into his own hands, or teeth, through a fairly complex set of reasoning logic, and actions, all of which are generated, and planned, by an ability that's not instinctual, or even natural.
If a modern Westerner took his I-phone and showed it to an aborigine who'd never contacted modern man, the aborigine would think it was some kind of divine product from heaven since the aborigine mind is not only not confused about inductive logic, neither does it do anything profound that it would have to attribute to inductive logic. In other word, those Westerners who believe in inductive logic are like unfaithful aborigines. They want I-phones and the Internet though they're unaware that no such thing has ever been created by aborigines or inductive logic. Unlike their aborigine peers who simple refuse to use any mental capacity that threatens their claim to naturalism, natural-ness, physicalism, the Westernized abo uses the divine accoutrements of his mind and then paints over the metaphysical dimensions with his faux-inductivist fallacy.
This doesn't address my question, which was, "
What is the belief in inductive logic? Can one not believe in it?" If only you wrote answers like, "Belief in inductive logic means... which is different from merely knowing what it is by being..." and "yes(or no, one need believe in it because...)." If you did, I would have had my questions answered and could address your reply. We could have proceeded forward. But here we are, stuck in the mud right where we were two posts ago.
If a hypochondriac is given a placebo it can work, since the hyperactive belief in sickness isn't technically a real sickness, even as a placebo isn't technically a real cure.
If the human mind transcends its natural frame, the biological body and brain, but the person living in the biological body and the brain never bothered to notice the distinct difference between their self-conscious sentience versus the other assemblages of nature, then, like a hypochondriac, they can use the fallacy of inductive logic as a placebo making them think the supernatural things their mind is doing is actually natural since it occurred though the natural cause and effect processes associated with inductive inference or logic.
I asked you what an atheistic placebo is. What you describe above is not a placebo of any kind. A placebo is something known to be inert that one believes will have a physical effect on them. You seem to be describing what you consider faulty or fallacious thinking - in this case, not recognizing a divine influence that is present and mistaking it for innate capability.
I'd say that the opposite is likely the case - you mistakenly believe that your innate abilities are of divine provenance. This is what I consider the most likely explanation for people saying that they have experienced God in a way they can't share or demonstrate. They mistake a naturalistic mental state for something else. They're projecting their idea from their minds onto the world. What is really only "in here" is understood to be "out there."
But I wouldn't use the word placebo (or the phrase theistic placebo) to describe that.
Incidentally, attributing inner thoughts to external agents is common in human history. The ancient Greeks had no concept of human creativity in the arts, and just assumed that all such inspirations were delivered to them from muses of poetry, music, etc.. The so-called prophets thought to be speaking for a God were simply not seen as being able to come up with such ideas, so divine messaging to them was assumed. Dreams are commonly interpreted as messages from an external source.
Atheism is superior to theism in many ways. And vice versa. As a human being, your are a divine species. The chasm between you and an ape or peacock isn't a prejudice. It's as clear as anything could possibly be:
The universe could so easily have remained lifeless and simple----just physics and chemistry, just scattered dust of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to time and space. The fact that it did not----the fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing----is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice. And even that is not the end of the matter. Not only did evolution happen: it eventually led to beings capable of comprehending the process, and even of comprehending the process by which they comprehend it.
Here we go again. I asked, "
How does one use a divine spirit? I'm an atheist. Are you saying I do that? If so, what are you saying I'm doing? Am I getting that divine spirit to help me?" I don't see an answer there. Maybe you're telling me that the difference between a human being and the other beasts is a divine spirit. If so, how much nicer it would have been to write that sentence that directly and clearly. Instead, I still have to clarify what you are saying.
A great deal of what we do everyday as human beings has never been done one time, cognatively, sentiently, by any organism in the first few billions years of the existence of life on earth. Not by an insect, or any other mammal. And as many great scientist, say Chomsky, point out, there's no line from there to here. It's impossible. And yet it's both true that it's impossible to get from there to here by the laws of physics, and also that we're here.
So what I say the atheist does, which my instincts want to demonize, is use logic like this:
John says I'm divine. And he makes a true case that scientists like Chomsky show that the way we human's function, communicate, and think, is impossible within the laws of physics. But that would mean I possess something that's not natural, while I'm quite comfortable in my skin, with my job, my beautiful wife and kids, and our Tesla, and new tv, and Sheila, our Mexican maid. So no. I think I'll just stay natural thank you. For otherwise, you know, to whom much is given, much is expected. So that if I go down that slippery slope of supernatural-ness, I might find that some supernatural being shared his supernaturalness with me and expects me do some something I know not what, nor care to know what, in return. Uh . . . thanks but no thanks. Call my rejection of supernatural things "inductive logic" if you like, but it's served me well so far, so, so be it, you trouble-making so-n-so.
And here it is again. This was a response to, "
And what is this other thing you say I might be doing at the same time. What would be an example of something a person like me might have done that could be described as, "treating the abilities circumscribed by that divine spirit as though they're produced inductively --- naturally." Did you mean innately or intuitively rather than inductively?" I won't ask you these questions again, and feel no need to continue answering replies from any poster that simply will not try to understand what is being said or asked, and address it clearly and specifically.
These answers just aren't helpful, and I am now no closer to understanding why you started this thread or what you wanted to say or discuss, so I will disengage here. I will never understand you, because you don't seem to have much interest in what I say I need to do that.
I offered to help you and you declined. That's fine. Hopefully you learned something about what good faith disputation and dialectic require in order to make progress, and why we made none here. Hopefully, you would prefer to be understood and your ideas discussed with you, will see that you will have to learn how to do those things, and will seriously consider trying to understand what you are told or asked, and how to answer responsively.
Thanks for your time and good cheer, but we are at exactly the same place we began, and I can see that that won't change with additional interchanges between us.
