|
The Belgian posted:You're the one who made the positive claim that it's common sense without any argument. Alright, fair enough. Rather than debate whether "commonsense" exists or whatever, how's this: A Terrible Person posted:I honestly have no idea why so many people object to this as an Better?
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
A Terrible Person posted:Alright, fair enough. Rather than debate whether "commonsense" exists or whatever, how's this: Because language is formed by common use and not just someone's whim.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
A Terrible Person posted:Better?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
twodot posted:Because a belief that God exists and the existence of God can't be proven just means your definition of God is too weak, or you have an unreasonable/impossible burden of proof. What does it even mean for something to exist but its existence fundamentally can't be proven? That doesn't make any sense, and it's not a standard we apply to other known not to exist things. Kind of makes me wonder why "atheist" is used at all, then. Aside from that, thanks. I appreciate the response. The Belgian posted:Because language is formed by common use and not just someone's whim. What's the threshold at which something becomes common, then? I've seen people use the terms as Lprsti99 used them often enough to make them commonly known, but their usage is generally by people self-identifying and/or arguing against people using them and that's about it. I'm obviously not exactly a linguist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
A Terrible Person posted:Kind of makes me wonder why "atheist" is used at all, then. Aside from that, thanks. I appreciate the response. Because atheism implies the positive belief that god does not exist, as opposed to a lack of belief.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:Because atheism implies the positive belief that god does not exist, as opposed to a lack of belief.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Because it's not common sense. Shush, sweety, the big people are talking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Shush, sweety, the big people are talking. hi to you too mr ad hom
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:Again this is not a standard we apply to literally any other concept. No one attempts to inquire as to whether their non-belief in Santa Claus is a positive belief or just a lack of belief. Weapons of mass destruction This is a standard that you can apply to absolutely anything for which there is a potential thing. Hell, what's behind curtain #3? Do you BELIEVE it's a boat? Do you BELIEVE it's not a boat?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:hi to you too mr ad hom I'm not sure you actually know what ad hominem means. I'll give you a clue; not all attacks and insults are ad homs. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'm not sure you actually know what ad hominem means. I'll give you a clue; not all attacks and insults are ad homs. But yours are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:But yours are. Actually, no, because you need to have an argument before you can accuse people of arguing against your character in lieu of the argument itself (this is also not always a fallacy). And "nuh-uh" does not qualify as an argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:Weapons of mass destruction aWMD? Never heard a person called that before. I'm not being serious, sorry. A Terrible Person fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Actually, no, because you need to have an argument before you can accuse people of arguing against your character in lieu of the argument itself (this is also not always a fallacy). And "nuh-uh" does not qualify as an argument. And I did have an argument? you do actually read what's posted, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:Weapons of mass destruction
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
I don't think people work the way you think they do
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
twodot posted:Because a belief that God exists and the existence of God can't be proven just means your definition of God is too weak, or you have an unreasonable/impossible burden of proof. What does it even mean for something to exist but its existence fundamentally can't be proven? That doesn't make any sense, and it's not a standard we apply to other known not to exist things. A couple options: You might think the existence of God can be subjectively known, but that it is not intersubjectively provable. For example, some people believe that the only way to come to authentic faith is through a personal experience of the divine. Or, like Kirkegaard, you might think even subjective knowledge is impossible, but still maintain that a 'leap of faith' to theistic belief is required to make sense of an absurd universe. Kant thought that faith in God was necessary to even think of human practical behavior as rational, so that even though it cannot be rationally proved, it is the necessary precondition for rationality per se (notice the similarity of this argument to those in the transcendental aesthetic).
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:I don't think people work the way you think they do edit: Juffo-Wup posted:A couple options: quote:Or, like Kirkegaard, you might think even subjective knowledge is impossible, but still maintain that a 'leap of faith' to theistic belief is required to make sense of an absurd universe. Kant thought that faith in God was necessary to even think of human practical behavior as rational, so that even though it cannot be rationally proved, it is the necessary precondition for rationality per se (notice the similarity of this argument to those in the transcendental aesthetic). twodot fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:And I did have an argument? you do actually read what's posted, right? "No it's not because I say so" is not an argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
I'd like to say, knowing no one will believe me, that I personally experienced the divine between August and November of last year. I experience involuntary movement of my head and extremities by something beyond the scope of the physical almost every day since then. This sounds like a joke and I wish it was. Before this experience I was an Agnostic. I, like many of the people in this thread find the idea of a creator incredibly distasteful and disturbing on an intellectual level, but short of the possibility that some sort of chip was planted in my brain that made these things and the many, many, improbably abundant occurrence of coincidences, I rule that an alternate hypothesis being statistically insignificant; indeed I rule it as statistically insignificant as mathematically possible. I found out that the whole after life thing is real and that there are a bunch of expectations placed on me for some reason to help humanity in a myriad of ways in the future. So there, take this as mad ranting or whatever but I now unequivocally believe that you can have personal experience with the divine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm not seeing the argument from Kant that God can't be rationally proved. Critique of Pure Reason, Ch.III, Section III-VII He rejects all the classical arguments for God's existence (Ontological, cosmological, teleological) and then gives general principles why any such arguments are bound to fail. But he thinks that a rational hope for the afterlife is necessary for thinking of ourselves as creatures bound by the moral law, and that faith is necessary for such hope to be rational.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
twodot posted:Because a belief that God exists and the existence of God can't be proven just means your definition of God is too weak, or you have an unreasonable/impossible burden of proof. What does it even mean for something to exist but its existence fundamentally can't be proven? That doesn't make any sense, and it's not a standard we apply to other known not to exist things. That is exactly the point. The universe is the way it is because God doesn't want to be known objectively. Such a thing would invalidate 1. faith, which for various planets in the cosmos is a condition essential for the development of its people and institutions 2. it would un counter to the tenant of creation. God wants the universe to be bustling, dynamic and full of abundance and yes, suffering and conflict. Suffering, conflict and resistance are fundamental principles of this universe because life is a test. There is so much of it because there needs to be to justify the massive populations worlds like ours probably invariably end up having. We're reaching near the double digit billions, but before that happens there will be a massive judgment to protect the earth and give it time to regenerate and become something new. The process will essentially start over. As a former atheist I firmly understand the resentment of the idea of creation. We don't like the idea that we're just solving puzzles put there for us to add purpose to our lives and meaning to our aptitudes and impetus to form our identities, but there you are. It is what it is and you have to cope with it the best you can. Pegged Lamb fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Pegged Lamb posted:I'd like to say, knowing no one will believe me, that I personally experienced the divine between August and November of last year. I experience involuntary movement of my head and extremities by something beyond the scope of the physical almost every day since then. This sounds like a joke and I wish it was. Before this experience I was an Agnostic. I, like many of the people in this thread find the idea of a creator incredibly distasteful and disturbing on an intellectual level, but short of the possibility that some sort of chip was planted in my brain that made these things and the many, many, improbably abundant occurrence of coincidences, I rule that an alternate hypothesis being statistically insignificant; indeed I rule it as statistically insignificant as mathematically possible. I found out that the whole after life thing is real and that there are a bunch of expectations placed on me for some reason to help humanity in a myriad of ways in the future. So there, take this as mad ranting or whatever but I now unequivocally believe that you can have personal experience with the divine. I believe that you had this experience, but I believe the same thing you believe about people who had similar mystical experiences which caused their subjects to draw conclusions contradictory to your own: it happened in their brain, and nowhere else. Consider seeking psychiatric help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Pegged Lamb posted:That is exactly the point. The universe is the way it is because God doesn't want to be known objectively. Such a thing would invalidate 1. faith, which for various planets in the cosmos is a condition essential for the development of its people and institutions 2. it would un counter to the tenant of creation. God wants the universe to be bustling, dynamic and full of abundance and yes, suffering and conflict. Suffering, conflict and resistance are fundamental principles of this universe because life is a test. There is so much of it because there needs to be to justify the massive populations worlds like ours probably invariably end up having. We're reaching near the double digit billions, but before that happens there will be a massive judgment to protect the earth and give it time to regenerate and become something new. The process will essentially start over. Source your quotes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I believe that you had this experience, but I believe the same thing you believe about people who had similar mystical experiences which caused their subjects to draw conclusions contradictory to your own: it happened in their brain, and nowhere else. Consider seeking psychiatric help. I probably need to see a psychiatrist but for different reasons entirely. I had a CT scan done and nothing out of the ordinary was found (mind you I know that psychological disorders don't manifest themselves on such a scan, I'm just minimizing physical causes.) It is precisely because of the great leaps made in science and industry and philosophical discourse over the last few hundred years, as well as the dire state of the very existence of the planet and breakdown of social harmony especially within the US, the extension of human lifespan and eventual end of physical aging and our imminent contact with extra terrestrial life (don't ask, I don't have many details on where or when) that god has decided to make a big splash, but it is going to do so in a neutral way that doesn't validate or invalidate any particular faith or faiths. No amount of counselling or therapy is likely to convince me otherwise that the intense, several months long subjective lived experience of coincidence after coincidence as well as inadvertent visions and the like was anything but genuine revelation, and it isn't because I am not open to the possibility of medicine or therapy providing help or answers to solve such a bizarre experience. I never had a vision before this event. I have experienced depression and social anxiety but never experimented with anything more adventurous than regular cannabis. When you remove the conventions of empiricism and the scientific method - which we know only are capable of demonstrating falsehoods - and just apply cursory reason to the matter of consciousness, it makes sense. The human body is under constant siege from environmental toxins, industrial chemicals, the turnover of cells, metabolic reactions, TBI, neurodegenerative diseases, free radicals, malnutrition, etc. it just makes sense to believe in something else. The consciousness is always there and essentially unchanged. Maturity, cognition, understanding, speech, response, sensual perception etc may be destroyed or impaired, but awareness is always there. This is because the former are conditions associated with the integrity of the structures of the physical brain. If you ever ask an older person in otherwise good health, chances are they will tell you they feel like they are still in their twenties mentally; this remains the case even though there are numerous lesions formed on the brains surface and connections are inevitably in a poorer state than they were in decades past. This is what is especially troubling about the Terry Schiavo's of the world. They know they are stil alive but are trapped in their physical bodies until the moment of death when the conscious is released. Then therea re the absurdities of life like how so much effort and resources are expended on war and frivolity relative to finding ways to promote health and longevity. Why is this? I think a driving reason is because people essentially grow to hate and tire of life. That is part of the pull to the other side of material universe where understanding (as I was informed) will be made appreciable to us. Also eternal life is supposed to be good and desirable, though I don't exactly see how that can be the case. Humanism is very enticing but we have to realize that as a species we are only just coming of age. ^^ My source is myself. Eventually I am going to write most of this stuff down. Pegged Lamb fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Pegged Lamb posted:I probably need to see a psychiatrist but for different reasons entirely. I had a CT scan done and nothing out of the ordinary was found (mind you I know that psychological disorders don't manifest themselves on such a scan, I'm just minimizing physical causes.) It is precisely because of the great leaps made in science and industry and philosophical discourse over the last few hundred years, as well as the dire state of the very existence of the planet and breakdown of social harmony especially within the US, the extension of human lifespan and eventual end of physical aging and our imminent contact with extra terrestrial life (don't ask, I don't have many details on where or when) You have no details. You hallucinated. You had an episode.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You have no details. You hallucinated. You had an episode. Here are the details I have. I was lying in bed when I felt something scraping on my teeth. I tried to open my eyes but couldn't. I tried to shift my legs but they were weighed down by some kind of suspensor net...thing I can only guess at the nature of. Years before this I felt an electric tremor on the back of my neck that gave me a jolt. Since both of these episodes I've felt things happening within my body that were unusual to say the least. Things that 'felt' like nanobots were circulating in my scapula; things like my bones having become unusually rigid around the clavicle, some kind of implant lodging itself in the center of my cervical vertebrae (this caused me intense pain for weeks) as well as something that feels like...I don't even know what it is but something I would liken to neodinium magnets around my pelvis/kidneys. An incision appeared on my foot with stitch like marks that disappeared after only a day or so. It sounds exactly like sleep paralysis induced nightmare which I also experienced. Pegged Lamb fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Pegged Lamb posted:The consciousness is always there and essentially unchanged. Is it? How do you know this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Pegged Lamb posted:Here are the details I have. I was lying in bed when I felt something scraping on my teeth. I tried to open my eyes but couldn't. I tried to shift my legs but they were weighed down by some kind of suspensor net...thing I can only guess at the nature of. Years before this I felt an electric tremor on the back of my neck that gave me a jolt. Since both of these episodes I've felt things happening within my body that were unusual to say the least. Things that 'felt' like nanobots were circulating in my scapula; things like my bones having become unusually rigid around the clavicle, some kind of implant lodging itself in the center of my cervical vertebrae (this caused me intense pain for weeks) as well as something that feels like...I don't even know what it is but something I would liken to neodinium magnets around my pelvis/kidneys. An incision appeared on my foot with stitch like marks that disappeared after only a day or so. It sounds exactly like sleep paralysis induced nightmare which I also experienced. Yes. these are tactile hallucinations and classical symptoms of schizophrenia. I reiterate that you should seek psychiatric help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Critique of Pure Reason, Ch.III, Section III-VII Pegged Lamb posted:That is exactly the point. The universe is the way it is because God doesn't want to be known objectively.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yes. these are tactile hallucinations and classical symptoms of schizophrenia. I reiterate that you should seek psychiatric help. I'm gonna second this. There are likely people worried about you and your behavior, Pegged, and they want to see you get better. The things you're describing are products of a malfunctioning brain, you need to seek treatment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Is it? How do you know this? Well strictly speaking I don't know it. I have experienced severe malnutrition and depletion of minerals and fluids with only added lethargy and confusion. I knew who I was and could move and make sense of my environment but my faculties (go ahead and joke) were greatly diminished. Various forms of dementia are accompanied by increased forgetfulness but maintained awareness (think Terry Pratchett) and scans of the brains of vegetative patients show that you can ask them questions and parts of their brain will light up even if vast regions of it are gone. I'm just using reason with my imperfect knowledge. Things like music and prayer restore some cerebral function briefly via mysterious means. Is it just the brain rewiring itself? It could be. Science may well prove me wrong about everything. It might even uncover the existence of the spirit someday and prove some of you wrong. Until then I'm going to make a first contact thread to stir some debate. twodot posted:Existence of an after life doesn't require a God, and it especially doesn't require a God that won't or can't teleport to my living room to perform parlor tricks to demonstrate its existence. (edit: We further don't have to think of ourselves as creatures bound by moral law) I suppose the first thing is true but would essentially require that this all be virtual reality, wouldn't it? I don't think we are bound by moral law because (I believe) we have free will. It just behooves us to follow it if we want to aspire to that after life rather than eternal death or reincarnation. It didn't 'teleport' to my living room so much as it shares my mind and can thus influence the qualia I perceive. To a neutral third party observer the things I did in accordance with these various visions and messages (the minority were in my mind, the majority of messages I received came to me through my external environment) would be well within their rights to consider me to be hallucinating or insane as you do. I can only count on time to vindicate me which isn't much comfort. I take nothing for granted. I suppose if God really wanted itself to be known objectively to a single observer it could do it, but it would require A.) Complete and perfect knowledge about how the brain and mind work in concert so as to rule out third causes B.) A total suspension of disbelief on the part of the recipient of the revelation or will or whatever. Even then it would only be good for that single individual. For me I leave that statistical .0000000000000000001% or whatever is not covered by the normal distribution, I forget the term, just because I don't like absolutes and don't have anywhere near the information I would like to have. I think the Sistine chapel illustrates all that needs to be understood on the matter. We can't aspire to reach God but they can reach us. This is desirable for the functioning of society and the continuance of creation, etc. Total harmony and joy reached through the union with God is for the other side of the universe where we go when we die and are deemed worthy according to actions in life. Think about how dull it would be if everyone was simply born over there and never experienced the opposite. Pegged Lamb fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'm gonna second this. There are likely people worried about you and your behavior, Pegged, and they want to see you get better. The things you're describing are products of a malfunctioning brain, you need to seek treatment. Isn't Pegged just listing symptoms of known illnesses and everyday things? This feels just like an episode of House. Pegged Lamb posted:I'd like to say, knowing no one will believe me, that I personally experienced the divine between August and November of last year. I experience involuntary movement of my head and extremities by something beyond the scope of the physical almost every day since then. Pegged Lamb posted:Here are the details I have. I was lying in bed when I felt something scraping on my teeth. I tried to open my eyes but couldn't. I tried to shift my legs but they were weighed down by some kind of suspensor net...thing I can only guess at the nature of. Pegged Lamb posted:Years before this I felt an electric tremor on the back of my neck that gave me a jolt. Pegged Lamb posted:Since both of these episodes I've felt things happening within my body that were unusual to say the least. Pegged Lamb posted:Things that 'felt' like nanobots were circulating in my scapula; things like my bones having become unusually rigid around the clavicle, some kind of implant lodging itself in the center of my cervical vertebrae (this caused me intense pain for weeks) Pegged Lamb posted:as well as something that feels like...I don't even know what it is but something I would liken to neodinium magnets around my pelvis/kidneys. Pegged Lamb posted:An incision appeared on my foot with stitch like marks that disappeared after only a day or so. Pegged Lamb posted:It sounds exactly like sleep paralysis induced nightmare which I also experienced.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
twodot posted:Existence of an after life doesn't require a God, and it especially doesn't require a God that won't or can't teleport to my living room to perform parlor tricks to demonstrate its existence. (edit: We further don't have to think of ourselves as creatures bound by moral law) You've lost sight of the object here. I'm not making Kant's argument for him, I'm just pointing out that smart people have simultaneously believed that God exists and that there is no definitive proof of it, because you indicated that you thought that position was nonsensical.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:You've lost sight of the object here. I'm not making Kant's argument for him, I'm just pointing out that smart people have simultaneously believed that God exists and that there is no definitive proof of it, because you indicated that you thought that position was nonsensical. Smart people are not incapable of holding nonsensical beliefs, so I'm confused as to what you actually think you've demonstrated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:You've lost sight of the object here. I'm not making Kant's argument for him, I'm just pointing out that smart people have simultaneously believed that God exists and that there is no definitive proof of it, because you indicated that you thought that position was nonsensical. edit: And it especially doesn't imply the God who runs the after life can't prove that they exist. edit2: To be clear, I'm talking about people who say that God's existence can't be proven, not simply that we haven't gathered sufficient proof to date. Obviously it's possible to believe something exists, while also not having enough evidence to convince other people it exists. twodot fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
twodot posted:Right and I'm saying Kant's position is nonsensical. Otherwise smart people can say stupid things. If Kant wants to argue that belief in an after life is necessary for whatever, fine, but that doesn't justify believing in either an after life or a God. This is the sort of explanation an atheist would give for why they were raising their children religious, not what a theist would say. I'm not up to giving you a complete exigetical reading of Kant's moral/religious philosophy, I'm just saying that the fact that a certain position was taken by Kant is prima facie evidence that it's not totally outrageous. If you think you can give a two-paragraph refutation of one of the most respected thinkers of the modern era on the basis of some internet rear end in a top hat's offhand summary, then you are much more confident in your powers of understanding than I am of mine. Otherwise, if you want to satisfy yourself that Kant really wasn't on to anything, then go ahead and read Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason or, to a lesser extent, the first two Critiques. But if you're more comfortable holding court on which positions on theism are acceptable, well I guess I'm not super interested in engaging with that attitude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:I'm not up to giving you a complete exigetical reading of Kant's moral/religious philosophy, I'm just saying that the fact that a certain position was taken by Kant is prima facie evidence that it's not totally outrageous. If you think you can give a two-paragraph refutation of one of the most respected thinkers of the modern era on the basis of some internet rear end in a top hat's offhand summary, then you are much more confident in your powers of understanding than I am of mine. Otherwise, if you want to satisfy yourself that Kant really wasn't on to anything, then go ahead and read Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason or, to a lesser extent, the first two Critiques. But if you're more comfortable holding court on which positions on theism are acceptable, well I guess I'm not super interested in engaging with that attitude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:I've given my reasoning for why Kant's position as stated by you is nonsensical. I'll allow it's more likely you are badly parroting someone smarter than you then Kant thinking an idiot thing, but I don't really care. If you think I've missed something, feel free to point that out. If you can't point out what argument I missed, you should be agreeing with me. If you're not prepared to defend a position, don't bring it up. Fine. You've made two claims: first, that belief in an afterlife does not require belief in God. Second, that even if it did, that would not amount to justification for the latter belief. Both depend on a misunderstanding of Kant's position, which I'll try my best to explain. Kant has a view on rational action such that the only rational actions are those that are in accordance with the moral law. This is from the critique of practical reason, and for now I'll gloss over it. Acting in accordance with the moral law sometimes requires acting against our own immediate interests. Why do such a thing? Kant does not think that atheists are incapable of acting from duty in particular instances, but he does think that they (or rather, we, if you care to know) are incapable of making the moral law the organizing principle of their lives. This is because they have no reason to think that living in such a way will be to their ultimate benefit - any such hope would be baseless, therefore irrational. But this very thing is what the moral law requires. So, in a broad sense, one's life can only be led in a rational way if one has a basis to hope that there will be a reward for a moral life. There is no proof to ground that hope, but Kant does think there is a reason (read: that it is reasonable) to adopt theistic faith as a basis for that hope: namely, that the alternative is to give up on the project of rational action altogether, which from the view of European rationalists like Kant, is just unacceptable. So your first argument is mistaken because the kind of afterlife Kant needs requires an ultimate judge. Your second argument seems not to distinguish between proof, justification, and having a reason,which is an important distinction here. Yeah, this all hangs very heavily on Kant's moral philosophy. But if you accept that (which requires accepting his metaphysics) the rest more or less follows. Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
twodot posted:The problem here is your analogy doesn't make any sense in context. If you're in front of a curtain and someone is asking about your belief state regarding boats being behind it, you likely have a significant amount of evidence that there might be a boat (including the fact that certain regions of space are known to contain boats, especially local to the surface of Earth). Maybe not enough to be sure, but you have some reasonable expectation that a boat exists behind the curtain. This isn't a question of binary belief, this is a question of how likely you think that there is a boat there. Thinking there is a 99% chance of boatness is not qualitatively different from thinking there is a 1% chance. (edit: What's relevant is whether you behave as though there is a boat or not) I think you need to define what belief is to you. Like, how about the world as you perceive it? Many people believe god does or does not exist despite not being able to provide 100% proof. I use the real world hypothesis and reliance on science as a good indicator of what I'm comfortable believing. Some people think they have proof of things, but then there's the whole fact that science relies on circular logic, and also there's the brain in a vat thought experiment. Knowledge and belief are not the same thing. To believe that and to know that have very different requirements. Many people honestly believe things that are ridiculous to you and me. I appreciate your logical positivist stance for what it is but I think there's an element of psychology that you're not giving credit, which is that people are very very capable of everyday cognitive dissonance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 03:59
|
|