Searching for GOD...

[wigginhall]

I wouldn't say that he is lying.  One explanation could be that his belief arises from embedded suggestion which is quite prevalent in some religions.  It has a resemblance to stage hypnosis where a volunteer can see situations which the audience can see as being untrue.  The volunteer is not lying, he just sees things that he is conditioned to see and it is beyond the reach of intellectual reasoning.

That's an interesting analogy, whereby somebody is in a different kind of reality, e.g. I'm a chicken.   I'm not sure it explains actual misrepresentations, where somebody answers a different question from the one asked.   But I think compulsive lying is poorly understood, as far as I can see, and my memory is that therapists and psychiatrists live  in horror of it, since compulsive liars are practically impossible to treat, since of course, for them, there is no problem.

[Nearly Sane]

That's an interesting analogy, whereby somebody is in a different kind of reality, e.g. I'm a chicken.   I'm not sure it explains actual misrepresentations, where somebody answers a different question from the one asked.   But I think compulsive lying is poorly understood, as far as I can see, and my memory is that therapists and psychiatrists live  in horror of it, since compulsive liars are practically impossible to treat, since of course, for them, there is no problem.

Aren't we all in different realities but we can talk more to those who appear to share one closest to our own. Hence I am much more likely to understand Gonnagle than BeRational. Realities, even, or particularly, our own shift like a new act in the theatre. We do, then, band together with those we share enough with to say they are bad, they are mad , and they over there are most certainly dangerous to know!

[ekim]

That's an interesting analogy, whereby somebody is in a different kind of reality, e.g. I'm a chicken.   I'm not sure it explains actual misrepresentations, where somebody answers a different question from the one asked.   But I think compulsive lying is poorly understood, as far as I can see, and my memory is that therapists and psychiatrists live  in horror of it, since compulsive liars are practically impossible to treat, since of course, for them, there is no problem.

Yes, misrepresentations are quite frequent on discussion sites.  Sometimes they are as a result of not understanding the question but when politicians do it I think it is a deliberate ploy, like talking out an interview so that there is no time for further questions.  I think Alan is overwhelmed by the amount of attention his posts get. 

[wigginhall]

I think he's overwhelmed by his own ideas.   I mean, I don't think he understands them really, but for some reason, he fakes it.

[Dicky Underpants]

DU

This covers Ayer's experience in some detail

http://www.philosopher.eu/others-writings/a-j-ayer-what-i-saw-when-i-was-dead/

Thanks for trying, NS. Unfortunately, I'm using a library computer, and the link you've given has been blocked by SMOOTHWALL! I can't imagine what salacious details Ayer was relating about his near-death experience. Did it verify the Muslim accounts of the afterlife? Perhaps he managed a quickie or two with some of those 'doe-eyed virgins' (but I wouldn't have thought they'd be available to unbelievers )

P.S.
Just found the article elsewhere, and am having the colourful of experience of reading it in white against a purple background. No doubt this will give me otherworldly visions too. Never associated Ayer with purple prose passages before.

[Nearly Sane]

Thanks for trying, NS. Unfortunately, I'm using a library computer, and the link you've given has been blocked by SMOOTHWALL! I can't imagine what salacious details Ayer was relating about his near-death experience. Did it verify the Muslim accounts of the afterlife? Perhaps he managed a quickie or two with some of those 'doe-eyed virgins' (but I wouldn't have thought they'd be available to unbelievers )

At a complete loss. The actual experience sounds a bit like a slightly odd first episode of Dr Who.

[Dicky Underpants]

At a complete loss. The actual experience sounds a bit like a slightly odd first episode of Dr Who.

Have now read it and a later clarifying article. I was glad he modified what he had originally written with this:

My purpose in writing a postscript to the article about my ‘death’, which I contributed to the 28 August issue of the Sunday Telegraph, is not primarily to retract anything that I wrote or to express my regret that my Shakespearian title for the article, ‘That undiscovered country’, was not retained, but to correct a misunderstanding to which the article appears to have given rise.

I say “not primarily to retract” because one of my sentences was written so carelessly that it is literally false as it stands. In the final paragraph, I wrote, “My recent experiences have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death … will be the end of me.” They have not and never did weaken that conviction. What I should have said and would have said, had I not been anxious to appear undogmatic, is that my experiences have weakened, not my belief that there is no life after death, but my inflexible attitude towards that belief. Previously my interest in the question was purely polemical. I wished to expose the defects in the positions of those who believed that they would survive. My experiences caused me to think that it was worth examining various possibilities of survival for their own sakes. I did not intend to imply that the result of my enquiry had been to increase the low probability of any one of them, even if it were granted that they had any probability at all.

It was interesting to note from his experience (if one were to take it as genuinely mystical) that it encapsulates an essential Gnostic belief that 'something went wrong in the creation of the universe'. In Ayer's experience, he claims to have seen two 'ministers' who were responsible for puttting right a blip in the way space fits together. It was quite amusing to read that Ayer himself felt that he was obliged to put things right, since the two celestial ministers buggered off and were no more to be found!

The speculations which the experience prompted him to were certainly interesting - regarding the possibility of a bodily survival or resurrection (which he seemed to regard as the only feasible option). He pointed out that such matters are central to Christian belief, though Christians and other believers would probably be disappointed with his conclusion that survival of death is not inextricably related to the existence of God.
Good to see Le Bon David and old Renee still being relevant to his musings.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Dicky,

The cognitive dissonance aspect is surely supremely important, and I wonder if there is actually a quantative difference in the 'amount' of emotional investment of believers in the particular belief system to which they have devoted most of their lives, from the amount of such investment that non-believers have? The point is that non-believers may be intensely headstrong, utterly convinced that they have analysed the questions down to the ultimates, but if they are utterly convinced that their conclusions are correct, then they have only this life in which the ramifications of their life-philosophy will play out. Whereas the believer seems to be playing for higher stakes - his/her eternal destiny.

I’m not sure about that – it’s a kind of consequentialism I guess: the stakes re an afterlife are so much higher than for just this one, therefore… um… anything goes when arguing for the associated beliefs. You could also though perhaps argue it the other way around – as this is our only turn around the block, we should pack as much meaning and experience into it as we can. 

Personally I reckon the key is in the word “emotional”. Religious belief appears (for some at least) to be an intensely emotional matter – these people believe it with feeling. It’s notable for example how often some say, “I don’t care what evidence or logic you could ever bring to the table, my faith in God can never be shaken”, or “I was a wretch before I was saved” etc. By contrast, I have no great emotional attachment to my conclusions at all. If tomorrow I came across an argument for “God” that I couldn’t falsify, then I’d think "OK then, there must be a god" (perhaps followed closely by a question about why he’s such a scumbag).

There's an interesting anecdote from the life of the distinguished positivist philosopher Freddy Ayer, who apparently had a 'near-death' experience late in life. He was apparently quite phlegmatic about the obvious challenge this brought to the whole corpus of his lifelong thought, saying something on the lines of "I suppose I'll have to re-think things now". I somehow doubt that he went to his death believing in the real existence of the 'spiritual world' since he must have known that there are other ways of accounting for such dramatic experiences. Anyone know if Sir Freddy went to his death as a believer?

I don’t I’m afraid, but likewise I think my response too would be to consider first what naturalistic cause(s) there could have been rather than reach straight for a supernatural one. There’s a story like that I’ll try to look out of an academic who had a “god experience” so immediately checked in for an MRI scan, only to find that he’d suffered a temporary epileptic seizure of the occipital lobe (from memory) that sure enough is know to cause profoundly transcendent sensations.

That’d be my response too I think. I’d also incidentally look askance at the remarkable co-incidence of the God I thought had paid a visit just happening to be the one most proximate to me in time and place rather than one of the plethora of gods others have believed in at various times and places (or indeed a god no-one else had thought of).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

I think he's overwhelmed by his own ideas.

Nice phrase. I think that's it - he told us that he had his big idea decades ago, and for him it seems to have been the magic key that made everything fall into place now it had an explanatory narrative. That's it's a terrible idea matters not a jot - time and experience have case-hardened it against any criticism, however well-founded.

[Dicky Underpants]

I don’t I’m afraid, but likewise I think my response too would be to consider first what naturalistic cause(s) there could have been rather than reach straight for a supernatural one. There’s a story like that I’ll try to look out of an academic who had a “god experience” so immediately checked in for an MRI scan, only to find that he’d suffered a temporary epileptic seizure of the occipital lobe (from memory) that sure enough is know to cause profoundly transcendent sensations.

That’d be my response too I think. I’d also incidentally look askance at the remarkable co-incidence of the God I thought had paid a visit just happening to be the one most proximate to me in time and place rather than one of the plethora of gods others have believed in at various times and places (or indeed a god no-one else had thought of).

Indeed - there's a fine book on this very theme which analyses people like Hildegard of Bingen, Dostoevsky and other worthies, viewing their experiences in the light of their known physical maladies (persistent migraines in the former and epilepsy in the second). The chap had a Welsh-sounding name*, which unfortunately escapes me at the moment.
As I suspected, once Ayer had time to reflect on his experience, he did view it in the light of matters of brain-chemistry.

Regarding the parochiality that seems to be evident in such visions, I note that Ayer admits that his classical training probably accounted for his mention of crossing a river (the River Styx). But it also noteworthy that he didn't admit that such experiences  - if they could somehow be proved to be valid in their own terms - were incontrovertible arguments for the existence of God.

*Conceiving God by David Lloyd-Williams (having checked my shelves)

[Dicky Underpants]

Wiggs,

Nice phrase. I think that's it - he told us that he had his big idea decades ago, and for him it seems to have been the magic key that made everything fall into place now it had an explanatory narrative. That's it's a terrible idea matters not a jot - time and experience have case-hardened it against any criticism, however well-founded.

The case of old Freeminer comes to mind (remember him? Surely as memorable as Barry Scott and Cillit Bang). He had been convinced by his parents as a child that he was 'saved'.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#16169

.....as a generalised phenomenon people who behave this way certainly ought to - after all, how many times can 2+2≠5 be explained only for the recipient to reply 2+2=5 for his dishonesty to be wilful?

2+2=5 is far too simple a comparison though isn't it.

Personally, I think the accusations against Alan Burns are grossly unfair.

The use of the 2+2=5 analogy is interesting though. 2+2=5 being wrong can be demonstrated conclusively by
•   Showing that 2+2=4
•   Showing that 2+3=5

If the ‘5’ as the answer represents Alan Burns’ conclusions, then where were the equivalent of proving that
•   An alternative path exists to get to his conclusions, or
•   Something else is responsible for the item under discussion, thereby disproving his claims

Since the analogy of 2+2=5 was used for comparison purposes, the implication is that the person using it is claiming their position as factually true (because the error in the calculation is provably wrong). Yet at no stage has this been demonstrated, otherwise there would be no argument; there would no need for one!

While we are on mathematical analogies, I would suggest the situation is more this.

Alan Burns is doing the equivalent of claiming that 1+1=10. Many of the arguments against him are doing the equivalent of claiming that 1+1=2, except those making them are assuming base 10 and only base 10 whereas Alan is using base 2. Alan is being told the equivalent of, he is not allowed to use base 2 because it isn’t valid (for whatever reason that is claimed) and that base 10 is the only base allowed.

Surely Alan is within his rights to argue from his position when all of the allegations of logic and fallacies are all based on the equivalent stance of saying only base 10 is allowed. 1+1=10 is not a logical statement in base 10 but it is in base 2. To therefore assume that Alan is doing the equivalent of saying 2+2=5 and ignoring rebuttals shows that there is a problem in the approach that assumes the truth of their position without proof, then uses it to make deductions against opposing arguments.

[torridon]

Alan Burns is doing the equivalent of claiming that 1+1=10. Many of the arguments against him are doing the equivalent of claiming that 1+1=2, except those making them are assuming base 10 and only base 10 whereas Alan is using base 2. Alan is being told the equivalent of, he is not allowed to use base 2 because it isn’t valid (for whatever reason that is claimed) and that base 10 is the only base allowed.

Surely Alan is within his rights to argue from his position when all of the allegations of logic and fallacies are all based on the equivalent stance of saying only base 10 is allowed. 1+1=10 is not a logical statement in base 10 but it is in base 2. To therefore assume that Alan is doing the equivalent of saying 2+2=5 and ignoring rebuttals shows that there is a problem in the approach that assumes the truth of their position without proof, then uses it to make deductions against opposing arguments.

Changing the notation base is irrelevant to the truth or not of the underlying proposition. A proposition if either correct or incorrect, it matters not what language or base notation is used to express it, nor does the 'worldview' of the proponent.

[SusanDoris]

#16169

Personally, I think the accusations against Alan Burns are grossly unfair.

For goodness' sake, you're not going to try going through all your mathematical attempts at diversion again, are you?
It doesn't work, and it isn't clever, nor is it clever debate.

[Walter]

sword

you can fool yourself all you like but don't expect right thinking people to fall for it.

straws and clutching come to mind , why don't you just give up?

[Gordon]

#16169

Personally, I think the accusations against Alan Burns are grossly unfair.

The use of the 2+2=5 analogy is interesting though. 2+2=5 being wrong can be demonstrated conclusively by
•   Showing that 2+2=4
•   Showing that 2+3=5

If the ‘5’ as the answer represents Alan Burns’ conclusions, then where were the equivalent of proving that
•   An alternative path exists to get to his conclusions, or
•   Something else is responsible for the item under discussion, thereby disproving his claims

Since the analogy of 2+2=5 was used for comparison purposes, the implication is that the person using it is claiming their position as factually true (because the error in the calculation is provably wrong). Yet at no stage has this been demonstrated, otherwise there would be no argument; there would no need for one!

While we are on mathematical analogies, I would suggest the situation is more this.

Alan Burns is doing the equivalent of claiming that 1+1=10. Many of the arguments against him are doing the equivalent of claiming that 1+1=2, except those making them are assuming base 10 and only base 10 whereas Alan is using base 2. Alan is being told the equivalent of, he is not allowed to use base 2 because it isn’t valid (for whatever reason that is claimed) and that base 10 is the only base allowed.

Surely Alan is within his rights to argue from his position when all of the allegations of logic and fallacies are all based on the equivalent stance of saying only base 10 is allowed. 1+1=10 is not a logical statement in base 10 but it is in base 2. To therefore assume that Alan is doing the equivalent of saying 2+2=5 and ignoring rebuttals shows that there is a problem in the approach that assumes the truth of their position without proof, then uses it to make deductions against opposing arguments.

I see you are still peddling this inane drivel.

[Stranger]

Surely Alan is within his rights to argue from his position when all of the allegations of logic and fallacies are all based on the equivalent stance of saying only base 10 is allowed. 1+1=10 is not a logical statement in base 10 but it is in base 2. To therefore assume that Alan is doing the equivalent of saying 2+2=5 and ignoring rebuttals shows that there is a problem in the approach that assumes the truth of their position without proof, then uses it to make deductions against opposing arguments.

This is utter drivel for reasons that have already been explained to you (more than once). Number base is a notational difference: the number two is a logical construct that can be represented by many notations ('two', '2', '10', '{∅, {∅}}', 'II', '0x02' and so on).

Unless you think Alan is using some different notation/language/terms (that he hasn't bothered to explain), your comparison is just silly.

In truth, Alan's problem is that he cannot produce any logical basis for his assertions and incredulity and that his conclusion is logically self-contradictory.

[floo]

Poor Sword he seems to be in a bit of a muddle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Personally, I think the accusations against Alan Burns are grossly unfair.

The use of the 2+2=5 analogy is interesting though. 2+2=5 being wrong can be demonstrated conclusively by
•   Showing that 2+2=4
•   Showing that 2+3=5

If the ‘5’ as the answer represents Alan Burns’ conclusions, then where were the equivalent of proving that
•   An alternative path exists to get to his conclusions, or
•   Something else is responsible for the item under discussion, thereby disproving his claims

Since the analogy of 2+2=5 was used for comparison purposes, the implication is that the person using it is claiming their position as factually true (because the error in the calculation is provably wrong). Yet at no stage has this been demonstrated, otherwise there would be no argument; there would no need for one!

While we are on mathematical analogies, I would suggest the situation is more this.

Alan Burns is doing the equivalent of claiming that 1+1=10. Many of the arguments against him are doing the equivalent of claiming that 1+1=2, except those making them are assuming base 10 and only base 10 whereas Alan is using base 2. Alan is being told the equivalent of, he is not allowed to use base 2 because it isn’t valid (for whatever reason that is claimed) and that base 10 is the only base allowed.

Surely Alan is within his rights to argue from his position when all of the allegations of logic and fallacies are all based on the equivalent stance of saying only base 10 is allowed. 1+1=10 is not a logical statement in base 10 but it is in base 2. To therefore assume that Alan is doing the equivalent of saying 2+2=5 and ignoring rebuttals shows that there is a problem in the approach that assumes the truth of their position without proof, then uses it to make deductions against opposing arguments.

Oh dear. Even a moth that continually flies at a flame will realise eventually that he gets burned every time.

What's your excuse?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Dicky,

Indeed - there's a fine book on this very theme which analyses people like Hildegard of Bingen, Dostoevsky and other worthies, viewing their experiences in the light of their known physical maladies (persistent migraines in the former and epilepsy in the second). The chap had a Welsh-sounding name*, which unfortunately escapes me at the moment.

As I suspected, once Ayer had time to reflect on his experience, he did view it in the light of matters of brain-chemistry.

Quite. I’m chary about attempting neurological diagnoses, but there is now a field of neurotheology. Famously the story of Paul – falling to the ground and experiencing a blinding light, hearing a voice claiming to be "Jesus of Nazareth, then being unable to see and not eating or drinking for three days on his way to Damascus – are all typical of temporal lobe epilepsy.

Similarly people suffering hallucinogenic episodes were often thought to be possessed by evil spirits and the like whereas now they’d be diagnosed with a neurological disorder and treated rather than subjected to an exorcism or similar.

Regarding the parochiality that seems to be evident in such visions, I note that Ayer admits that his classical training probably accounted for his mention of crossing a river (the River Styx). But it also noteworthy that he didn't admit that such experiences  - if they could somehow be proved to be valid in their own terms - were incontrovertible arguments for the existence of God.

*Conceiving God by David Lloyd-Williams (having checked my shelves)

Funny that innit? Makes you wonder why, say, a previously undiscovered Amazonian tribe has never been found to have a religious narrative replete with Jesus, a resurrection etc. Why would the kosher God arrange things such that the phenomenon of religiosity looked just as you’d expect it to if all gods were culturally determined?

The case of old Freeminer comes to mind (remember him? Surely as memorable as Barry Scott and Cillit Bang). He had been convinced by his parents as a child that he was 'saved'.

Yes I do remember him – used to get very angry whenever inconvenient matters like facts and evidence undid his religious convictions. I suppose we should be grateful that, infuriating as he is, at least AB doesn’t work off a similarly short fuse.

[SusanDoris]

Poor Sword he seems to be in a bit of a muddle.

His posts would seem to indicate that he thinks everyone else is in a muddle and that his posts will put us straight. Hmmm.

[floo]

His posts would seem to indicate that he thinks everyone else is in a muddle and that his posts will put us straight. Hmmm.

If that is the case, poor dear, at the best of times his posts are not easy to figure out!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Susan,

His posts would seem to indicate that he thinks everyone else is in a muddle and that his posts will put us straight. Hmmm.

Curiously too he seems to me to exhibit a similar dishonesty to AB's. He tried an argument about having a different "world view" that he attempted to illustrate by changing the starting conditions for a sum. He's had it detonated many times now – a world view tells you nothing about epistemic truth, and tinkering with the conditions of a sum makes no difference to the world view of logic being applicable in both cases – yet rather than engage with the rebuttal he just goes quiet for a bit and then returns with the same bad reasoning.

A more honest person would engage with the rebuttal, and either find a counter-argument to it or abandon his argument. 

[Nearly Sane]

Hi Susan,

Curiously too he seems to me to exhibit a similar dishonesty to AB's. He tried an argument about having a different "world view" that he attempted to illustrate by changing the starting conditions for a sum. He's had it detonated many times now – a world view tells you nothing about epistemic truth, and tinkering with the conditions of a sum makes no difference to the world view of logic being applicable in both cases – yet rather than engage with the rebuttal he just goes quiet for a bit and then returns with the same bad reasoning.

A more honest person would engage with the rebuttal, and either find a counter-argument to it or abandon his argument.

We still haven't established dishonesty. And by your logic given that we have gone through this so many times, you are being dishonest

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

We still haven't established dishonesty. And by your logic given that we have gone through this so many times, you are being dishonest

Who's "we", and it's established in any case by the behaviour I just set out: attempt an argument/have it rebutted/ignore the rebuttal/repeat the argument. That seems like a type of dishonesty to me.

And no, going through it isn't the point: if Sword had rebutted an argument of mine and I'd ignored his rebuttal and repeated my argument over and again then you'd be right. As it stands though, I'm not the one leaving loose ends - he is. Pointing out what he's doing once or repeatedly isn't the issue: the ignoring of the argument is.