The skeptical Turn of mind

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator:Metacrock

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts:1410
Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Re: The skeptical Turn of mind

Post by KR Wordgazer » Wed Feb 20, 2008 4:02 pm

*feeling like my post somehow got overlooked :oops: *

I'm confused, Metacrock. In my post, I said this, quoting from the thread in question:
KR Wordgazer wrote:Actually, that's not what Metacrock's saying either. To quote him again from that thread:

Metacrock wrote:
I. We should not expect Empirical Proof of God: nor do we need it.

II, We can understand a co-determinate, or God Correlate, which is empirical.

III. The empirical nature of the co-determinate provides prima facie justification for belief, which is sufficient justification for belief.

Metacrock maintains only that these experiences "provide sufficient justification for belief." Not "proof." Which is the same thing I am maintaining.
But now you say this:
Metacrock wrote:
LACanuck wrote:
Yes, it is a "reasonable conclusion." It is not the only reasonable conclusion, clearly, since you also have a reasonable conclusion-- but I find my explanation far more reasonable than yours. I'm not trying to claim these experiences "prove" there must be something out there. But it is not unreasonable to think that is a possible, even a likely, explanation.
You misunderstood my 'reasonable conclusion' comment. My point was exactly that which you say in this quote where you say that the experiences don't prove there must be something out there. There are multiple explanations for the experiences. And while you are not claiming that the experiences prove that there is a reality behind them, the argument that Meta is making is that the experiences do prove that. My objection is entirely here...that religious experiences do not prove the existence of the divine.

yes they do. alternate causality is necessarily something to deal with, but it can be dealt with. The argument can stand up to them, and so far has stood up to all comers on that point.
Did I misunderstand something? In what sense are you using the word "proof"? *looks confused*
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: The skeptical Turn of mind

Post by Metacrock » Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:31 pm

its a pitty he hasn't come back on it yet. I hope he does.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts:1410
Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: The skeptical Turn of mind

Post by KR Wordgazer » Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:00 am

Yeah-- but in this case I was confused about what you meant, too, Metacrock. I mean, am I correct in my feeling that what you mean by "proof" and what LACanuck means are two different things? If so, then this is the same type of discussion we had in the old forum.

Perhaps if you stated what you mean by "proof" here, it would help? Though I don't know if LACanuck is coming back or not.
Wag more.
Bark less.

LACanuck
Posts:79
Joined:Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:51 am

Re: The skeptical Turn of mind

Post by LACanuck » Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:02 am

I haven't gone away. It's just that occasionally the 'real world' impinges upon my ability to post with thought.

And, because Meta made a comment in the CARM boards, let me clarify a little more. I normally post (for theological discussions, that is) on CARM and here. I find that CARM is mostly 'drive by'. It is not terribly difficult to counter many of the posts there. Many of the poster's views are fundamentalist in nature and it is easy to make an argument that points out the contradictions in their perspective. In fact, I think one of the reasons why Meta comes across as frustrated in CARM is because so many of the posters are fundies there. And an argument that I would make to a biblical inerrantist (for example) is quite different from one that I would make to a liberal Christian theologian. Meta (it appears to me) regularly 'intercepts' these arguemtns and suggests that they are crap. From his perspective, they are. He doesn't think that all of the stories in the OT are the literal truth, so pointing out the inconsistances in the actions is a waste of time. And he gets annoyed (or so it seems) that the same arguments (arguments that have no weight for him) are being trotted out. But like I said there, different audiences get different arguments. And sometimes you have to ignore arguments that you know have already been refuted to avoid getting p*ssed at the parties involved.

But that was a digression. Like I said, I find CARM to be an easy drive-by place to post. These forums (like the Sense of the Numinous) is a litle different. It requires more thought and effort to make reasonable posts. At the moment, I'm in the middle of writing a book, which means that my free time has shrunk significantly. So when I have only a little time to play in on-line forums, I'll tend to go to CARM because no individual post is going to take up more than a few minutes of my time, whereas posts here tend to eat up 30 minutes or more. So if you don't see me for a little while, it's not because I'm gone. It's only because I'm facing another freaking deadline. Like 5:00 pm this afternoon for my next chapter. ;)

LACanuck
Posts:79
Joined:Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:51 am

Re: The skeptical Turn of mind

Post by LACanuck » Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:09 am

Regarding your comment about 'proof' KR, Meta and I have had this discussion in the past. And, in this particular case, I'm not sure which meaning he is ascribing to the term 'prove'.

In my world (I have a BMath and spend my real life working with computers), proof is a logical construct denoting a set of arguments from which one can arrive at an undisputable conclusion. In other instances where Meta has used the term 'proof', he has mean a 'rational warrant for belief'. These are, as you might imagine, not the same thing ;) And when pushed on it, Meta readily agrees to this.

However, in the usage that we're talking about, it would seem to me that he is using 'prove' in a manner that is closer to my definition than his. I could be wrong about that, but when you start including empirical studies as part of your argument, the idea of 'proof' takes on a different meaning.

So I must leave it up to Meta to clarify whether he thinks that religious experience 'proves' the existance of the divine (using the word in my sense) or simply provides a rational warrant for the belief in the existance of the divine.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: The skeptical Turn of mind

Post by Metacrock » Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:59 pm

LACanuck wrote:I haven't gone away. It's just that occasionally the 'real world' impinges upon my ability to post with thought.

And, because Meta made a comment in the CARM boards, let me clarify a little more. I normally post (for theological discussions, that is) on CARM and here. I find that CARM is mostly 'drive by'. It is not terribly difficult to counter many of the posts there. Many of the poster's views are fundamentalist in nature and it is easy to make an argument that points out the contradictions in their perspective. In fact, I think one of the reasons why Meta comes across as frustrated in CARM is because so many of the posters are fundies there. And an argument that I would make to a biblical inerrantist (for example) is quite different from one that I would make to a liberal Christian theologian. Meta (it appears to me) regularly 'intercepts' these arguemtns and suggests that they are crap. From his perspective, they are. He doesn't think that all of the stories in the OT are the literal truth, so pointing out the inconsistances in the actions is a waste of time. And he gets annoyed (or so it seems) that the same arguments (arguments that have no weight for him) are being trotted out. But like I said there, different audiences get different arguments. And sometimes you have to ignore arguments that you know have already been refuted to avoid getting p*ssed at the parties involved.

But that was a digression. Like I said, I find CARM to be an easy drive-by place to post. These forums (like the Sense of the Numinous) is a litle different. It requires more thought and effort to make reasonable posts. At the moment, I'm in the middle of writing a book, which means that my free time has shrunk significantly. So when I have only a little time to play in on-line forums, I'll tend to go to CARM because no individual post is going to take up more than a few minutes of my time, whereas posts here tend to eat up 30 minutes or more. So if you don't see me for a little while, it's not because I'm gone. It's only because I'm facing another freaking deadline. Like 5:00 pm this afternoon for my next chapter. ;)
yea Canuck I agree with what you say. I often do forget that most of those guys are not really talking about my Christianity. I am glad you come here buddy. you raise the level of discussion. It would be no fun to just sit around agreeing with all those who agree with me. and you and i agree on somethings.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: The skeptical Turn of mind

Post by Metacrock » Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:04 pm

LACanuck wrote:Regarding your comment about 'proof' KR, Meta and I have had this discussion in the past. And, in this particular case, I'm not sure which meaning he is ascribing to the term 'prove'.

In my world (I have a BMath and spend my real life working with computers), proof is a logical construct denoting a set of arguments from which one can arrive at an undisputable conclusion. In other instances where Meta has used the term 'proof', he has mean a 'rational warrant for belief'. These are, as you might imagine, not the same thing ;) And when pushed on it, Meta readily agrees to this.

However, in the usage that we're talking about, it would seem to me that he is using 'prove' in a manner that is closer to my definition than his. I could be wrong about that, but when you start including empirical studies as part of your argument, the idea of 'proof' takes on a different meaning.

So I must leave it up to Meta to clarify whether he thinks that religious experience 'proves' the existance of the divine (using the word in my sense) or simply provides a rational warrant for the belief in the existance of the divine.

No empirical study of a social sciences nature really proves anything in the math sense. They came up with double blinds and personality tests and measurement statistical scales because they don't have mathematical certainty in social sciences. But those studies are closer to the proof you speak of in your field than they are to merely rational warrant. However, what they prove is not that God exists, or that God is behind the experiences. but that the experiences are real and they have real effects. To draw from that the inference that this is God behind it is to once again move into the rational warrant realm.


In my view a rational warrant is "close enough for government work." atheists make it sound like they just can't believe something short of total absolute proof. But they do believe things short of that, almost everything they believe is short of that.

this idea of proving things with mathematical certainty is just bunk. the only things you can prove with mathematical certainty is mathematics.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

ZAROVE
Posts:412
Joined:Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: The skeptical Turn of mind

Post by ZAROVE » Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:26 pm

On a slighgly off note...
I haven't gone away. It's just that occasionally the 'real world' impinges upon my ability to post with thought.

Boy howdy do I know that feeling.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: The skeptical Turn of mind

Post by Metacrock » Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:00 am

"boy howdy." I haven't heard that expression in a coon's age.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
Antimatter
Posts:102
Joined:Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:17 pm
Location:Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: The skeptical Turn of mind

Post by Antimatter » Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:22 pm

Hi Meta, forgive me for quoting you out of order:
Metacrock wrote:In my view a rational warrant is "close enough for government work." atheists make it sound like they just can't believe something short of total absolute proof. But they do believe things short of that, almost everything they believe is short of that. ... this idea of proving things with mathematical certainty is just bunk. the only things you can prove with mathematical certainty is mathematics.
Which atheists would those be? Atheism itself is not based on absolute proof! Speaking for myself, I accept atheism because I find it to be the most plausible explanation that most successfully explains the experience and observations I've made in my life. I don't claim to know everything, nor do I claim to have absolute mathematical proof.
No empirical study of a social sciences nature really proves anything in the math sense. They came up with double blinds and personality tests and measurement statistical scales because they don't have mathematical certainty in social sciences. But those studies are closer to the proof you speak of in your field than they are to merely rational warrant. However, what they prove is not that God exists, or that God is behind the experiences. but that the experiences are real and they have real effects. To draw from that the inference that this is God behind it is to once again move into the rational warrant realm.
I just replied to your a priori thread, so I'm struck with the same confusion here. You argue that social sciences do not provide evidence that god exists or that god engenders religious experience, but then you want to infer that they do. I could provide several conter-examples to your inference, such as the ability of drugs, trances, ritual, or strongly held belief to induce psychological experiences, many of which are arbitrarily chosen by researchers or contradictory to your theistic view.

Post Reply