Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Wiggs,

There's also the "lying for Jesus" effect: "I know - really, really know beyond any possibility of being wrong - that my faith is correct so, by comparison, truthfulness and fairness when engaging with others are second order issues." That seems to me to be how it works to me anyway - with my trusty sword of faith by my side, nothing else matters.   

I am not sure that is the case in many, if anyone on here. Most of those who carry out the misrepresentations  seem to just struggle to take in the correction. I am reminded of the sixth series of Buffy The Vampire Slayer where the big bad, Glory, morphs into and back from Ben but no one can remember that Ben is Glory.

[wigginhall]

That's a good point by NS.  Some people do have a mental firewall, so they can't actually absorb an idea which seems foreign to them.   So in a discussion, they will just go back to an old position, even if it's been demonstrated as wacky/bizarre/unreal/unsound, etc.   I remember my mum insisted that dinosaurs had never existed, even when the TV was showing pictures of fossils galore.

[ippy]

Is it the; "I know god will save me because I asked him, or it, to save me as I jump out of the 96th floor of this skyscraper building", syndrome?

This thread comes over as an extreme form of religious/faith based madness to me; were this thread about about any  subject other than religion, there would be an urgent need for some serious form of therapy to be applied.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

Is it the; "I know god will save me because I asked him, or it, to save me as I jump out of the 96th floor of this skyscraper building", syndrome?

This thread comes over as an extreme form of religious/faith based madness to me; were this thread about about any  subject other than religion, there would be an urgent need for some serious form of therapy to be applied.

ippy

In one sense though, here, the arguementum ad populum is valid. Simply because so many people are religious in some way makes it not something that we can sensibly refer to as madness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I am not sure that is the case in many, if anyone on here. Most of those who carry out the misrepresentations  seem to just struggle to take in the correction. I am reminded of the sixth series of Buffy The Vampire Slayer where the big bad, Glory, morphs into and back from Ben but no one can remember that Ben is Glory.

Dunno - certainly there are those who criticise science for its limitations, and several who like to refer dismissively to the "man-made" logic that undoes them. After all, they have access to a higher method - faith. It's not much of a leap from that to "man-made" truthfulness I'd have thought is it?

I'm struck too by what happens when people are caught out in lies and misrepresentations. Vlad for example just ignores it and carries on as if nothing had happened, Sparky responds with more slipperiness etc. Me, I'd curl up in a ball if I told a lie and was found out but the same response seems not to apply to some of those at least of faith.     

[floo]

People might believe something to be true, but to state it as fact when it cannot be substantiated, as some do where their faith is concerned, is not on, imo.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Dunno - certainly there are those who criticise science for its limitations, and several who like to refer dismissively to the "man-made" logic that undoes them. After all, they have access to a higher method - faith. It's not much of a leap from that to "man-made" truthfulness I'd have thought is it?

I'm struck too by what happens when people are caught out in lies and misrepresentations. Vlad for example just ignores it and carries on as if nothing had happened, Sparky responds with more slipperiness etc. Me, I'd curl up in a ball if I told a lie and was found out but the same response seems not to apply to some of those at least of faith.     

But to be 'caught out' they have to think they are lying. I am unconvinced that is the case everywhere you might see it. The reponses from Nick and Alan Burns just read to me as if they cannot understand the point being made. To take an example despite the many efforts on here and elsewhere, sometimes with drink involved, Gonnagle just doesn't understand how I can be an atheist, how anyone can be. It's a difference in experience and thought process that neither he nor I can breach, as I am just as hidebound in my lack of understanding in how anyone can be a theist. That gulf means that at times the very language seems to end up talking past each other.

[Brownie]

Wiggs:  Possibly some Christians ministers give dishonest views of non-Christians or atheists,  or maybe some books.   

Yes some do, I have come across that in the past, especially amongst the more zealous.  They blow things out of proportion.  I could see through it and also I found it embarrassing.  Not to say unkind. 

However there are plenty of non believers (in God) who give what could be described as dishonest views of believers, by giving undue emphasis to some practices or teachings and amplifying them.  Also jumping on people for the slightest remark and then worrying away at it like a dog with a bone.  Again, unkind.

Both as bad as eachother.

[Nearly Sane]

People might believe something to be true, but to state it as fact when it cannot be substantiated, as some do where their faith is concerned, is not on, imo.

I cannot substantiate murder is wrong but I will happily stats it as if it is fact.  There are theists who honestly believe their beliefs can be substantiated as fact but that you just don't follow the right way to substantiate things as facts.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But to be 'caught out' they have to think they are lying. I am unconvinced that is the case everywhere you might see it. The reponses from Nick and Alan Burns just read to me as if they cannot understand the point being made. To take an example despite the many efforts on here and elsewhere, sometimes with drink involved, Gonnagle just doesn't understand how I can be an atheist, how anyone can be. It's a difference in experience and thought process that neither he nor I can breach, as I am just as hidebound in my lack of understanding in how anyone can be a theist. That gulf means that at times the very language seems to end up talking past each other.

But when I say "black is black", someone replies "ah, so you think black is white then", I correct them on what I actually said (perhaps with a link to it) and they persist with the misrepresentation nonetheless in what way can they not think they are lying - or at least wilfully misrepresenting? Either language and meaning breaks down entirely such that "black is black" does mean, "black is white" or there's dishonesty going on.

The "how can he be an a/theist?" question is more nuanced than that, based as it is on the totality of the other person's experience but for simpler examples how else can we explain the persistence of the "so you think black is white then" response?     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But when I say "black is black", someone replies "ah, so you think black is white then", I correct them on what I actually said (perhaps with a link to it) and they persist with the misrepresentation nonetheless in what way can they not think they are lying - or at least wilfully misrepresenting? Either language and meaning breaks down entirely such that "black is black" does mean, "black is white" or there's dishonesty going on.

The "how can he be an a/theist?" question is more nuanced than that, based as it is on the totality of the other person's experience but for simpler examples how else can we explain the persistence of the "so you think black is white then" response?   

But the correction and the link make sense to you in a way that it might not to them. You may think that you have demonstrated something with an etch-a-sketch that could never be denied and they might just not see it like that. Again take an example of Alan Burns and his unfeasibly large personal incredulity; I just don't see anything in Alan's posts which look as if he's got the point that saying 'it seems unfeasible to me that my experience could be generated without free will' is an argument by personal incredulity but he's just decided deliberately to ignore it and repeat.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Nearly,

But the correction and the link make sense to you in a way that it might not to them. You may think that you have demonstrated something with an etch-a-sketch that could never be denied and they might just not see it like that. Again take an example of Alan Burns and his unfeasibly large personal incredulity; I just don't see anything in Alan's posts which look as if he's got the point that saying 'it seems unfeasible to me that my experience could be generated without free will' is an argument by personal incredulity but he's just decided deliberately to ignore it and repeat.

Yes, I take the point. At some level though ("no, I actually said "black is black" and here's where I said it") the only way it can't make sense to the "so you think black is white then" person is if language and meaning have broken down entirely. Yet the same person (presumably) wouldn't do the same thing in other areas of his life. 

How so?   

[Nearly Sane]

Nearly,

Yes, I take the point. At some level though ("no, I actually said "black is black" and here's where I said it") the only way it can't make sense to the "so you think black is white then" person is if language and meaning have broken down entirely. Yet the same person (presumably) wouldn't do the same thing in other areas of his life. 

How so?

To link to the thread I started on morality in a foreign language, if thinking in a foreign language is capable of affecting moral choices, then surely our experiences will affect how we see language choices. I think language is at vest only an approximation of what we mean, so communication works well for 'What time is the next bus?' but it gradually becomes muddier on other less tangible areas.

To take the whole question of the idea that atheism is philosophical naturalism, I think that when you or I might point out that it isn't, some theists see that as mere hair splitting, since we obviously don't believe in the supernatural. They feel we are hiding our 'true' thoughts because they cannot see it as anything other than an either/or.

[Enki]

Well, at first, I would take a charitable view, that it's done as a mistake, or it's a kind of internet casual thing about accuracy, but when it is so consistent, and so often corrected, but to no avail.   It must be conscious.

I'm curious where it comes from.   Possibly some Christians ministers give dishonest views of non-Christians or atheists,  or maybe some books.   It is quite systematic, but as I said some Christians don't do it.

I'm just reading a book by David Bentley Hart, and I think he does it systematically also about atheists, quite often distorting their views, and not citing them directly, along the lines of 'atheists are 100% naturalists'.    ('The Experience of God').

I quite agree , Wiggs. especially about David Bentley Hart.

Have you reached his chapter on 'Bliss' yet, where he has such little gems as:

“The least gesture of the will towards a moral end, no matter how vehemently one may suggest otherwise, is necessarily a confession of a natural longing for God.”

or:

"“Simply said, if there were no God, neither would there be such a thing as moral truth, nor such a thing as good or evil, nor such a thing as a moral imperative of any kind.”

Assertions rule OK. it seems.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

To link to the thread I started on morality in a foreign language, if thinking in a foreign language is capable of affecting moral choices, then surely our experiences will affect how we see language choices. I think language is at vest only an approximation of what we mean, so communication works well for 'What time is the next bus?' but it gradually becomes muddier on other less tangible areas.

To take the whole question of the idea that atheism is philosophical naturalism, I think that when you or I might point out that it isn't, some theists see that as mere hair splitting, since we obviously don't believe in the supernatural. They feel we are hiding our 'true' thoughts because they cannot see it as anything other than an either/or.

Not only in relation to morality. Different languages express different relations of the self to the world even about prosaic physical phenomena. Consider for example "I am cold" in English, compared with "I have cold" (j'ai froid) in French or "it is cold to me" (mir ist kalt) in German. Same sensation, but very different ways of describing it.

Even so, I still hold to the notion that at some base level either "black is black" can mean "black is white" or it cannot - which is what we're talking about here. Approximations and the interpretation of them is relevant, but so at some point must be base meaning. "Black is black" translates as "black is black" in any language.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Not only in relation to morality. Different languages express different relations of the self to the world even about prosaic physical phenomena. Consider for example "I am cold" in English, compared with "I have cold" (j'ai froid) in French or "it is cold to me" (mir ist kalt) in German. Same sensation, but very different ways of describing it.

Even so, I still hold to the notion that at some base level either "black is black" can mean "black is white" or it cannot - which is what we're talking about here. Approximations and the interpretation of them is relevant, but so at some point must be base meaning. "Black is black" translates as "black is black" in any language.

You had the discussion with jeremyp where you made the point about the winedark sea that would seem to contradict this. And I don't think there is any base meaning here, after all what is  'god' thing?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

You had the discussion with jeremyp where you made the point about the winedark sea that would seem to contradict this. And I don't think there is any base meaning here, after all what is  'god' thing?

The use of "base" in that discussion referred to the idea of an ultimate reality. Here I was using it to mean just the commonality of linguistic meaning. Whether or not someone else recognises either black or white in the same way that I do, the point is that they recognise them as different (which is why they have different words) - which is all that's necessary for the point I was making.       

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

The use of "base" in that discussion referred to the idea of an ultimate reality. Here I was using it to mean just the commonality of linguistic meaning. Whether or not someone else recognises either black or white in the same way that I do, the point is that they recognise them as different (which is why they have different words) - which is all that's necessary for the point I was making.     

But commonality of existing meaning is based on perception. If you literally don't understand how someone can be theist\atheist that affects the whole commonality.

In addition it"s not even clear to me that I have a commonality with me of meaning across time, nor that language lenssitself to anything other than fuzziness.

[ippy]

In one sense though, here, the arguementum ad populum is valid. Simply because so many people are religious in some way makes it not something that we can sensibly refer to as madness.

We obviously don't agree, N S.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

We obviously don't agree, N S.

ippy

You don't agree that the idea of madness is based on an evaluation of what large numbers of people think of as normal?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But commonality of existing meaning is based on perception. If you literally don't understand how someone can be theist\atheist that affects the whole commonality.

In addition it"s not even clear to me that I have a commonality with me of meaning across time, nor that language lenssitself to anything other than fuzziness.

I know, but still the point doesn't rest on someone else perceiving (in this case) colour in the same way that I do. If I took them shopping for carpet they would perceive the black one differently from the way they perceive the white one. That's why they would use the different appellations "black" and "white" for each sensory experience.

Call these experiences "B" and "W" respectively. When I say "B is B" and they record what I said as "B is W" there's a basic misrepresentation at play come what may.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I know, but still the point doesn't rest on someone else perceiving (in this case) colour in the same way that I do. If I took them shopping for carpet they would perceive the black one differently from the way they perceive the white one. That's why they would use the different appellations "black" and "white" for each sensory experience.

Call these experiences "B" and "W" respectively. When I say "B is B" and they record what I said as "B is W" there's a basic misrepresentation at play come what may.

You think, for example, pointing out the argument of personal incredulity that they are making to someone else is analogous here?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

You think, for example, pointing out the argument of personal incredulity that they are making to someone else is analogous here?

Potentially, yes (I was coming to that). For now though, I was just trying to establish that - while language and the relation of the self to the world is a critical issue - nonetheless all that's necessary here is for the commonality of the experience of difference.

Whether and how that can be mapped analogously to logic is the next step.   

[SusanDoris]

Is it really worth trying to have a reasoned rational argument with anyone that gains so much enjoyment from living in a fantasy world and is determined to stay there whatever anyone says to him?

ippy

Probably not. I started to write a response to BA's post, but changed my mind.

[wigginhall]

You don't agree that the idea of madness is based on an evaluation of what large numbers of people think of as normal?

This comes up in psychiatry, where a delusion is defined as a belief contrary to evidence, with the exception of culturally accepted beliefs.   I remember a NZ psychiatrist telling me that Maoris who communicated with their ancestors, are not considered delusional in NZ psychiatry.   In Maori society, they are 'normal'. 

This is also confirmed by life-style, i.e. many people with unwarranted beliefs can live perfectly normally.