Speaking in 'tongues'

[Leonard James]

Vlad,

So far as I'm aware you've never shown any awareness of the problem, let alone attempted to address it. A problem it is though nonetheless - your conviction that your experience and your attribution of its cause is real but those of others about their gods, Napoleon talking to them on the bus etc are not is just that - a conviction - but one entirely unsupported by any sort of argument to support it.

And there's your problem.

And it ain't ever going to go away.

[Outrider]

There are some things that only we know ourselves.

No.

There is one thing that we know ourselves - 'Cogito Ergo Sum'. Everything else is, at least, provisional, and some of them are more provisional than others.

If you have 'an experience' that can't be associated with any physically detectable source, can't be described to other people because we haven't developed the vocabulary to refer to the hypothetical sense that's used, and can't be reliably reported amongst the populace - given the majority of religious people do not claim to have come to their faith by personal revelation - then we have an extremely provisional claim.

You do not 'know' your experience was actually of god, you believe it was.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What about Low temporal lobe sensitivity?.................according to Persinger, Dawkins has it!!!!!!!!!!!

How ironic eh, Antitheists trying to say that Moses and Saul of Tarsus had Temporal lobe epilepsy...............When all the time Dawkins had measured low temporal sensitivity!!!!!!

What Larks!............sorry guys that certainly pisses on the Temporal Lobe Epilepsy Bonfire.

Not really. Yes lower temporal lobe activity is correlated with a lack of religious experience, by implication, as higher temporal lobe activity is correlated with religious experience.

However, the sensation has not been tied an actual event, still, so it's still effectively explanation of why that particular delusion or hallucination occurs.

In order to demonstrate that people were 'missing' out on an experience of an actual event because of temporal lobe insensitivity, you'd need to demonstrate by some other means that there was reason to think the religious activity to be sensed was real.

It's a little like saying that people that don't hear voices criticizing them in their own heads are suffering from low schizophrenia...

O.

I think a low temporal lobe sensitivity rather sounds like a condition though Rider.

Well I think according to Persinger other atheists have higher temporal lobe sensitivity than Dawkins'.

No doubt there will be a rush amongst the unfaithful to have Temporal Lobe reductions so they can be like their pin up Kim Kardashsorry Richard Dawkins.

I think it's called a ''Lobe Job''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

There are some things that only we know ourselves.

And there's your problem - only you "know" it. The problem though is that people with these private, subjective beliefs - in your god, in other gods, in the ghosts of their grandfathers, in unicorns for all I know - have a tendency to overreach by insisting that these are also objective, "true for you too" beliefs with no argument to take them from the former to the latter. 

By all means conclude that a universe-creating deity has been in touch if you want to. If you set the evidential bar low enough and that belief suits you, that's no-one's business but your own. The moment though that you insist that this god is objectively real for me too then you must also explain why none of the many naturalistic (but less thrilling) possible alternative explanations are more likely in your case, but are more likely in the cases of everyone who believes in supernatural "somethings" other than your own.

So far as I'm aware you've never shown any awareness of the problem, let alone attempted to address it. A problem it is though nonetheless - your conviction that your experience and your attribution of its cause is real but those of others about their gods, Napoleon talking to them on the bus etc are not is just that - a conviction - but one entirely unsupported by any sort of argument to support it.

And there's your problem.

Yes Blue but the point is I have come to know it.

As CS Lewis would put it, I was ''surprised by it''.

That just leaves you to pray that a) it happens to you or b) pray that it doesn't.

I believe that one day all of us either have to acquiesce to the source of the experience or be prepared to throw totally oneself in resistance to it. I think the story of Pincher Martin is perhaps the finest exposition of what that struggle may be like.
 

[Alien]

There are some things that only we know ourselves.

No.

There is one thing that we know ourselves - 'Cogito Ergo Sum'. ...

O.

Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.

[Shaker]

Which atheists? Where? When?

[Outrider]

There are some things that only we know ourselves.

No.

There is one thing that we know ourselves - 'Cogito Ergo Sum'. ...

O.

Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.

I'm not sure accepting or rejecting Descartes is really an atheist/theist split, to be honest...

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes Blue but the point is I have come to know it.

This is like opening a window to let out a bluebottle, only to watch it continually bang its head against the closed window next to it. No, you don't "know" that at all - you think it likely, you can grasp no argument to the contrary, you really want it to be true perhaps but it's still just a belief, and a personal one too. If you really think there to be a logical path from your subjective belief to an objective certainty by all means try to set it out, but for now you have only assertion - as does the muslim about Allah, the Aztec about the panther gods, and for all we know the unicornist about unicorns.

As CS Lewis would put it, I was ''surprised by it''.

Why? If you're able to set the evidential bar low enough, you cleave inextricably to narratives that make sense to you however daft, you're entirely untroubled by the co-incidence of the "real" god just happening to be the one with which you're most familiar, you refuse to extend to the beliefs of others just on their say-so the same courtesy you expect others to offer your belief just on your say-so etc then I'd have thought you'd inevitably end up as you have.

That just leaves you to pray that a) it happens to you or b) pray that it doesn't.

No, it still leaves you finally to explain why your confidence in your faith should be taken any more seriously than anyone else's confidence in his faith in anything else.

I believe that one day all of us either have to acquiesce to the source of the experience or be prepared to throw totally oneself in resistance to it. I think the story of Pincher Martin is perhaps the finest exposition of what that struggle may be like.

Well, not sure you can "acquiesce" to something you've yet to establish exists - especially as you seem to have no interest in making an argument for it, in eliminating first the myriad naturalistic causal alternatives, in suggesting why you're right and believers in other supernaturalisms are wrong etc so you seem again to be overreaching here.   

[Alien]

Which atheists? Where? When?

IIRC, BeRational for one. It came up in the context of whether we can be certain of anything. I said I was certain I exist. IIRC, BeRational did not agree. I can't find the posts relating to this, however. Shall I PM BeRational or would that be seen as me stalking him?

[Alien]

There are some things that only we know ourselves.

No.

There is one thing that we know ourselves - 'Cogito Ergo Sum'. ...

O.

Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.

I'm not sure accepting or rejecting Descartes is really an atheist/theist split, to be honest...

O.

Eh? I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I'm not fussed who said what. True is true whoever writes/says it. Ditto for untrue.

[wigginhall]

I remember saying that some Buddhists don't believe that they exist, but I don't think this has anything to do with their atheism really.   They have pursued a line of enquiry, which concludes that the separate self is an illusion, but I think this is found in other religions and philosophies.   Interestingly (or not), there is an argument about whether there is any self, not just a separate one, but it becomes a bit obscure.

[Outrider]

There are some things that only we know ourselves.

No.

There is one thing that we know ourselves - 'Cogito Ergo Sum'. ...

O.

Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.

I'm not sure accepting or rejecting Descartes is really an atheist/theist split, to be honest...

O.

Eh? I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I'm not fussed who said what. True is true whoever writes/says it. Ditto for untrue.

I misunderstood the implication in your post - when you said 'atheists who argued against me' I thought you were making a point about atheists rather than a point about a specific person whose atheism wasn't actually part of the issue.

O.

[SqueakyVoice]

There is one thing that we know ourselves - 'Cogito Ergo Sum'. ...

O.

Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.

The quote is "Cogito ergo sum" not "Cogito ergo sumus". You don't appear to appreciate the difference Al.

[Alien]

There is one thing that we know ourselves - 'Cogito Ergo Sum'. ...

O.

Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.

The quote is "Cogito ergo sum" not "Cogito ergo sumus". You don't appear to appreciate the difference Al.

"I think, therefore we are"? Since I don't have the posts to hand, it would be unfair of me to argue more about what I (think I) remember BeRational as saying.

[Shaker]

Since I don't have the posts to hand, it would be unfair of me to argue more about what I (think I) remember BeRational as saying.

That was my concern too.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.

You're missing it: in "I think, therefore I exist" the uncertainty here is the "I", not the "exist". The "I" I perceive may or may not be a reflection of the reality of what this "I" entails, but the "exist" bit isn't. Whatever "I" may actually be, it exists. 

[Alien]

Alien,

Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.

You're missing it: in "I think, therefore I exist" the uncertainty here is the "I", not the "exist". The "I" I perceive may or may not be a reflection of the reality of what this "I" entails, but the "exist" bit isn't. Whatever "I" may actually be, it exists.

OK with that. I am certain that whatever "I" am/is, it/I exists.

With regard to your Michael Faraday quote, are you sure he actually said that? I was not able to find anything concrete when I looked for a primary source some weeks ago.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

OK with that. I am certain that whatever "I" am/is, it/I exists.

Fine - that's all that's being said here.

With regard to your Michael Faraday quote, are you sure he actually said that? I was not able to find anything concrete when I looked for a primary source some weeks ago.

It's certainly on t'interweb as a quote, here for example:

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/294913-there-s-nothing-quite-as-frightening-as-someone-who-knows-they

Not sure how accurate the attribution is though. I'll have a look for a primary source.

[Enki]

Alien,

Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.

You're missing it: in "I think, therefore I exist" the uncertainty here is the "I", not the "exist". The "I" I perceive may or may not be a reflection of the reality of what this "I" entails, but the "exist" bit isn't. Whatever "I" may actually be, it exists.

Yes. I, for one, have always interpreted cogito ergo sum, as proof only that there is thinking going on, not necessarily that I am doing the thinking. For that I would first have to have a rock solid idea of what is meant by 'I'.

[Alien]

Alien,

Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.

You're missing it: in "I think, therefore I exist" the uncertainty here is the "I", not the "exist". The "I" I perceive may or may not be a reflection of the reality of what this "I" entails, but the "exist" bit isn't. Whatever "I" may actually be, it exists.

Yes. I, for one, have always interpreted cogito ergo sum, as proof only that there is thinking going on, not necessarily that I am doing the thinking. For that I would first have to have a rock solid idea of what is meant by 'I'.

"Cogito ergo sum" means "I think therefore I am". Both verbs are first person singular, aka "I".

Though we may struggle to describe fully what "I" means, we have sufficient knowledge to do stuff in the world. It may be fun and/or interesting to discuss what "I" really means, but we need to keep in the real world. If someone kills one of your loved ones, I doubt whether you or anyone else would enter into some philosophical discussion about what "I" means if they deny that killing. "What do you mean I killed your daughter?" Let's not get into a realm similar to discussing how many angels can dance on a pinhead, eh?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

Though we may struggle to describe fully what "I" means, we have sufficient knowledge to do stuff in the world. It may be fun and/or interesting to discuss what "I" really means, but we need to keep in the real world. If someone kills one of your loved ones, I doubt whether you or anyone else would enter into some philosophical discussion about what "I" means if they deny that killing. "What do you mean I killed your daughter?" Let's not get into a realm similar to discussing how many angels can dance on a pinhead, eh?

Well yes, but can you see now how far adrift you were earlier with:

Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.

?

"We" know that we/I exist, but not necessarily what we/I entails, let alone what subsidiary truth claims might entail. The best we can do is a probabilistic approach - it's true enough that the apple will fall, that murder is wrong etc to give us approximations we can act on and work with. That's why I always look askance at the certainties of the religious in particular - the blessed Vlad's assertions about categorically "knowing" that a god has been in touch with him personally for example. Further, there seems to me to be an inverse correlation at play here - the fewer the facts, the greater the certainty (eg religion); the greater the number of facts, the less the certainty (eg science).

Odd eh?   

[Alien]

Alien,

Though we may struggle to describe fully what "I" means, we have sufficient knowledge to do stuff in the world. It may be fun and/or interesting to discuss what "I" really means, but we need to keep in the real world. If someone kills one of your loved ones, I doubt whether you or anyone else would enter into some philosophical discussion about what "I" means if they deny that killing. "What do you mean I killed your daughter?" Let's not get into a realm similar to discussing how many angels can dance on a pinhead, eh?

Well yes, but can you see now how far adrift you were earlier with:

Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.

?

"We" know that we/I exist, but not necessarily what we/I entails, let alone what subsidiary truth claims might entail. The best we can do is a probabilistic approach - it's true enough that the apple will fall, that murder is wrong etc to give us approximations we can act on and work with. That's why I always look askance at the certainties of the religious in particular - the blessed Vlad's assertions about categorically "knowing" that a god has been in touch with him personally for example. Further, there seems to me to be an inverse correlation at play here - the fewer the facts, the greater the certainty (eg religion); the greater the number of facts, the less the certainty (eg science).

Odd eh?   

I'd change "Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this." to "Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know I exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this."

I'm not sure you exist, but I do.

If you exist, I'd be interested in hearing you defend, "Further, there seems to me to be an inverse correlation at play here - the fewer the facts, the greater the certainty (eg religion); the greater the number of facts, the less the certainty (eg science)."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Alien,

Though we may struggle to describe fully what "I" means, we have sufficient knowledge to do stuff in the world. It may be fun and/or interesting to discuss what "I" really means, but we need to keep in the real world. If someone kills one of your loved ones, I doubt whether you or anyone else would enter into some philosophical discussion about what "I" means if they deny that killing. "What do you mean I killed your daughter?" Let's not get into a realm similar to discussing how many angels can dance on a pinhead, eh?

Well yes, but can you see now how far adrift you were earlier with:

Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.

?

"We" know that we/I exist, but not necessarily what we/I entails, let alone what subsidiary truth claims might entail. The best we can do is a probabilistic approach - it's true enough that the apple will fall, that murder is wrong etc to give us approximations we can act on and work with. That's why I always look askance at the certainties of the religious in particular - the blessed Vlad's assertions about categorically "knowing" that a god has been in touch with him personally for example. Further, there seems to me to be an inverse correlation at play here - the fewer the facts, the greater the certainty (eg religion); the greater the number of facts, the less the certainty (eg science).

Odd eh?   

I think you and I have the Dawkins /Jay Gould divide to contend with Blue.

I believe there is scientific fact and facts gleaned from experience. Now we either bite the bullet and dismiss facts gleaned by experience as generically untrue or we say that the domain or magisterium of science deals in this type of fact and religion deals with that type of fact.

Two big red herrings have wormed their way into this argument.
Firstly Science is being used as if it is interchangeable with atheism
Secondly, rather than science and religion, we should more correctly be talking about science and non science since any difference/conflict is being specially pleaded if we only consider religion.

[wigginhall]

Alien,

Looking forward to hearing from the atheists who argued against me when I said that we know we exist and to seeing the tack they take now it is Outrider arguing this.

You're missing it: in "I think, therefore I exist" the uncertainty here is the "I", not the "exist". The "I" I perceive may or may not be a reflection of the reality of what this "I" entails, but the "exist" bit isn't. Whatever "I" may actually be, it exists.

Yes. I, for one, have always interpreted cogito ergo sum, as proof only that there is thinking going on, not necessarily that I am doing the thinking. For that I would first have to have a rock solid idea of what is meant by 'I'.

That's an old criticism of Descartes, I think.   When he says 'I think ...' he is cheating really, since it's the I he is after, but he has pre-empted the discussion.    In the old phrase, he starts with his conclusion.  It reminds me that the traditional Buddhist critique is not of the I (self) but the separate I.   Where is it?

[Shaker]

Is it possible for there even to be the thought "There is thinking" (or "Thinking is going on") without an implicit but automatic corollary "... and I am the one doing it"?

If not "I," who else?