tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post4960322081990929570..comments2024-03-29T18:16:16.530+11:00Comments on The Social Pathologist: Giving Nietzsche EyesThe Social Pathologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-13109150891370189702013-11-27T16:18:22.685+11:002013-11-27T16:18:22.685+11:00I think this is a defense of irrationality: belief...I think this is a defense of irrationality: belief in God™ and superstitions; however, I think it is foolish to believe ultimate truths cannot be known or realized on Earth.<br /><br />The color vision argument is a straw-man and fails to defeat your opponent's argument, because he with sight perception could tell one type of object from other, which differed only in color and interior contents, so the man with color vision could empirically prove color vision to his blind cohorts. I know of no such repeatably verifiable demonstrable evidence for the existence of God™, The Trinity®, or the correctness of any other desert (or non-desert) religion out there. Man's laws of physics, based experimentally on that which is perceptible and measurable, is what makes it possible for you to read this very sentence. Nothing in the Bible leads you to go from hatchet-in-the-forest to sending an e-mail quite like man's physical and computational laws.<br /><br />Speaking of computation, have many of you thought that this superstition isn't just a brain-virus to keep you producing on the plantation? Boy, as a slave-driver, I'd sure want my cash-cows believin' they'd be going to the eternal fire-pit if they revolted against and murdered me...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-75967936309072687042011-02-01T19:28:15.545+11:002011-02-01T19:28:15.545+11:00This is essentially the argument from religious ex...This is essentially the argument from religious experience. The problem is that such experiences do not interpret themselves. They may reflect something real, or they may be the mind playing tricks on itself.<br /><br />There also seems to be the problem that such experiences seem to be artificially inducible. IIRC, scientists have induced mystical experiences through stimulating certain parts of the brain. But one need not refer only to modern science: the use of drugs in religion has a long history. Speaking from personal experience, not having touched alcohol until my early twenties, my younger self was really quite disturbed to when I went from skepticism to certainty in the existence of God merely by ingesting a bottle or two or wine.Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002311410445623799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-87634739347544399362011-02-01T11:21:43.418+11:002011-02-01T11:21:43.418+11:00Okay, more progress. Agreed, we have to separate ...Okay, more progress. Agreed, we have to separate the "feelings" one has about a sensory experience from the sensation itself. We can now also talk about some errors in this proposed sense in terms of "ethical illusions" (like optical illusions) as distinct from usual errors caused by more traditional forms of corruption (e.g. "X is moral because it makes me feel better about myself.")<br /><br />Useful term/meme to refer to various New Age beliefs and practices: "newage" (rhymes with sewage) Example: "Barbara filled her head with newage and now she's completely crazy."<br /><br />Question: Can you come up with a short list of statements, your knowledge of which comes largely or entirely through this extra sense, rather than through normal senses, indoctrination, etc?<br /><br />Clearly there could be some statements which one person believes because of indoctrination -- "I believe Jesus rose from the dead because authority figure X told me to believe in it (or else!)" -- where another might believe because of the extra sense -- "Well, I read this old book, and this part about Jesus really seemed completely inescapable".<br /><br />Hypothesis: Could this distinct sense be a property of thinking beings in general? Maybe even information processing systems in general?Robert Brockmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-58240919651726309162011-01-31T01:22:39.679+11:002011-01-31T01:22:39.679+11:00"We are no longer able to hear God -- There a..."We are no longer able to hear God -- There are too many frequencies filling our ears."<br /><br />True Talk...<br /><br />http://www.making-up-tips.infojokey4allhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17973099496628449152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-46604716607719962732011-01-30T12:37:31.606+11:002011-01-30T12:37:31.606+11:00@Nietzsche.
I'm interested to know SP's s...@Nietzsche.<br /><br /><i>I'm interested to know SP's stance on evolution</i><br /><br />Logically plausible. Statistically improbable. Direct scientific evidence of evolution: scarce. <a href="http://www.genomeweb.com/blog/evolution-fruit-fly-evolution-human" rel="nofollow">Drosophila?</a><br /><br />I believe that there was some form of Divine Agency in the origin of human life. But how it was expressed, I don't know. Do I believe in literal Seven Day Creationism? No.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-64228798362654833352011-01-30T12:24:49.340+11:002011-01-30T12:24:49.340+11:00@R Brockmann continued.
The best way to think abo...@R Brockmann continued.<br /><br />The best way to think about this sense is to think of it <i>as a sense</i>. For example, when your eye senses a chair, the mind recognises that existence of that chair; it recognises the fact of it. What ever feelings are generated by this act of recognition are independent of the <i>act</i> of recognition.<br /><br />If a blind person were to ask me, "Slumlord, how do you know of the colour red?" I'd answer that I can't explain why red is red, it has to be experienced. The faith sense--(as opposed to knowledge of God)--in this regard is properly basic. (In the Plantinga sense)<br /><br /><i>If you are correct, perhaps you can identify situations in which the sense was more active than normal. </i><br /><br />I can't identify a situation because it's not a situational thing any more than your hearing is situational. You don't feel "spiritual" by having the faith-sense any more than you might feel "optical" by having sight. What I see with my eyes may give me pleasure or grief but the faculty of sight is emotion free.<br /><br />Think of the faith sense as a faculty which put convictions into your mind in the same way that your eyes transmit visual images.<br />What a man perceives through faith sense is independent of him in the same way he has no choice in the experience of redness: It just is that way. <br /><br />But as the Christian fathers have alluded, the sense is prone to inaccuracy. But just because the sense may be inaccurate does not mean that all information gleaned from it is irrelevant. Furthermore, it does appear that some people have it an others don't. I've met several agnostics of good will who can see the logic lets say of the "prime mover" but ultimately aren't convinced. If I didn't have the faith, whilst I would probably admit that the existence of God is probable, I too, wouldn't be convinced either.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-57200585524908416152011-01-28T09:05:10.773+11:002011-01-28T09:05:10.773+11:00@R Brockmann
SP, I suspect that you and some of t...@R Brockmann<br /><br /><i>SP, I suspect that you and some of the others here believe that you have this extra sense in some capacity. If you are correct, perhaps you can identify situations in which the sense was more active than normal. </i><br /><br />It doesn't work that way.<br /><br />I think it confuses things by having an emotional association with the sense. I think this error is most easily demonstrated is with regard to new age spirituality. People here have "holy/spiritual" feelings and they link whatever their doing at the time with this sense and claim it as some type of insight. This isn't it.<br /><br />It's a faculty that recognises the "truthfullness" of things, independently of how what feelings it engenders.<br /><br />To take the C.S. Lewis example above. The constant nagging he was feeling about his beliefs was <i>not</i> the sense. That was a product of intellect, which was trying to reconcile what Lewis believed with what Lewis was sensing. <br /><br />Think of it like one of those intellectual problems, where you have an explanation but you're not really happy with it. Your logic is good but something's not right. Where is the origin of this sentiment? Clearly, something is generating this sense of unsatisfaction, but it can only generate this unsatisfactory sentiment by sensing a difference between the the explanation and the reality of the thing. In other words, the priori perception is the instigating element.<br /><br />I've got to go now but will reply later.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-2685684160584010992011-01-28T02:52:53.586+11:002011-01-28T02:52:53.586+11:00Nietzsche: My analogy would be the same if I wasn...Nietzsche: My analogy would be the same if I wasn't at all sure what it was that I saw through the window. I could just as well say, "I have no idea what it is, but there is something in the front yard." My belief would be grounded on direct experience. My wife, who lacks the direct experience, says she will believe me only if I can ground here belief in a logical demonstration of the proposition "there has to be something in the front yard." This is impossible, since whatever it is that is out there is not out there necessarily--it doesn't have to be out there. What she should do, and probably would do, is believe that there is something in the front yard because she has good reason to believe I am a reliable witness or authority. And isn't this what we call faith?JMSmithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-78651714777593707812011-01-27T14:33:21.163+11:002011-01-27T14:33:21.163+11:00@JMSmith
That would be totally different since th...@JMSmith<br /><br />That would be totally different since the wife would already know when using the label "dog" it implies a four legged furry mammal. <br /><br />As far as we know no one has seen God. So I guess it is more like Martians than dogs. <br /><br />I'm interested to know SP's stance on evolution.Nietzschenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-74364243929670671742011-01-27T14:12:50.449+11:002011-01-27T14:12:50.449+11:00SP, I suspect that you and some of the others here...SP, I suspect that you and some of the others here believe that you have this extra sense in some capacity. If you are correct, perhaps you can identify situations in which the sense was more active than normal. <br /><br />Let's imagine a blind man who has just had his vision repaired. Now he's getting lots of new data into his skull, but he can't interpret it very well. He still has no idea what people are talking about when they use the words "red" and "blue". However, if we show him a blue piece of paper and tell him "this is red" then he will be in a better position to understand the concept of red.<br /><br />Likewise, if I have a limited form of this extra sense, I should be able to describe a situation and then ask, "does this situation involve the extra sense?" You may have been in a similar situation and may remember some aspect of the new sense being present. Through this process we can come to a shared understanding of the sense.<br /><br />Does this make sense?Robert Brockmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-60234892289260840242011-01-27T13:44:52.765+11:002011-01-27T13:44:52.765+11:00R Brockmann
Working Hypothesis: accomplished disc...R Brockmann<br /><br /><i>Working Hypothesis: accomplished disciples of the Jesus Training System (and possibly other analogous systems in other cultures) have specific enhanced observational powers that, when used properly, allow them to make decisions which benefit humanity. </i>.<br /><br />The sense may of may not make decisions which benefit humanity, since the sense has poor acuity.<br />and is prone to error.<br /><br /><i>but in this case you are asserting that there is a different sensory modality at work which provides the evidence. (Note we're back to empiricism again, just with this new "faith" sense added to the sources of observation.)</i><br /><br />Correct. The problem isn't so much the empirical method, but empirical premise; that there are only five senses, instead of a inconsistent sixth.<br /><br />I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to get at in your last paragraph.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-70968407849842388942011-01-27T13:36:02.245+11:002011-01-27T13:36:02.245+11:00Data Point 1:
One evening I was out at dinner wit...Data Point 1:<br /><br />One evening I was out at dinner with two dear friends of mine. They were ex-boyfriend/girlfriend, but had remained friends of a sort. The girl had been tormented by awful people for most of her life (raped hundreds of times, beaten, exposed to terrible insanity, etc.) but had somehow managed to survive. The guy had been her boyfriend for several years after the abuse and had done his dead-level best to be kind and respectful to her (and had wanted to marry her.)<br /><br />That evening at dinner, for apparently no reason at all, the girl said some devastatingly horrible and vicious things to the guy. Really cruel and unfair things, if she had stabbed him in the chest with a steak knife it would have been nicer. The guy didn't react at all. It was so bad that I went home after dinner and sobbed for an hour. (I'm not generally a blubbering wuss, it really was that awful.) The next morning I woke up and sobbed for another hour and then went to work.<br /><br />Then something really odd happened.<br /><br />All day at work, I had what I can only describe as "compassion for all sentient beings". When the users I was responsible for had problems for me to solve, I could really "perceive" their suffering and frustration and was powerfully motivated to work extra hard. When I encountered the boss, who most of the other employees disliked and feared, I could directly "see" that his outward appearance was just a front: he was terribly worried about keeping the company afloat, and if things went bad it would be his fault and he would have failed his employees, and that's why he rode everyone's asses so hard.<br /><br />Needless to say, I got about 2x as much done that day as normal, and felt much, much better than I have ever felt before, or since. I was completely devoid of jealousy, worry, fear, anger, or basically any emotion other than love and caring for anyone within range.<br /><br />This mode of operation lasted until the late afternoon, when I was trying to explain this state to my girlfriend at the time -- then it vanished and I returned to normal.Robert Brockmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-14431610283928017532011-01-27T13:17:36.070+11:002011-01-27T13:17:36.070+11:00Ok, now we're starting to get somewhere.
Wo...Ok, now we're starting to get somewhere. <br /><br />Working Hypothesis: accomplished disciples of the Jesus Training System (and possibly other analogous systems in other cultures) have specific enhanced observational powers that, when used properly, allow them to make decisions which benefit humanity. <br /><br />Definitional Issue: we can call this sense "faith", but this can cause confusion. "Faith" is often times defined as "believing in things in the absence of evidence or reason" but in this case you are asserting that there is a different sensory modality at work which provides the evidence. (Note we're back to empiricism again, just with this new "faith" sense added to the sources of observation.)<br /><br />Now we can attempt to "calibrate" our mutual understanding of this sensory modality. Some people here claim to have limited access to this sense, whereas I am unsure. I will begin by sharing some of my observations, and if you like, you can respond with "Yes, you're getting warmer, that seems like it involves this new sense" or "No, Robert, that seems rather irrelevant, and can probably be explained by something else."Robert Brockmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-14144425705289053182011-01-26T13:16:57.645+11:002011-01-26T13:16:57.645+11:00Poignant and apropo.Poignant and apropo.RobertThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14329877995282306725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-5407907658502636692011-01-26T09:49:52.271+11:002011-01-26T09:49:52.271+11:00Seeing is knowing; everything else is emotive hope...<i>Seeing is knowing; everything else is emotive hope, probabilistic guess or reasoned theory.</i><br /><br />I would go even further than that. Even seeing is not knowing, because there is always a gap between the experience of seeing something and that of forming a proposition about it (ie, the visual experience of a blade of grass is distinct from the proposition "There is a blade of grass there"). Something could always go wrong between the visual experience and the forming of the proposition, such as optical illusion, hallucination, or just plan poor judgment.<br /><br />The only things that are known are those that can be known via pure basic logical intuition (mathematical truths, the non-contradiction principle, etc) - the first principles - and these are all abstract rather than empirical truths.The Deucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-43264650033446968362011-01-26T09:12:02.006+11:002011-01-26T09:12:02.006+11:00SP: Thanks for all of your thoughtful responses. ...SP: Thanks for all of your thoughtful responses. It's been a while since I read Plantinga, but I don't recall that he says a basic or incorrigible belief in God is proof of God's existence, only that one can hold such a belief while living up to philosopher's terms of "epistemic responsibility." In other words: I may be wrong, but I am not being irrational. This sort of argument will not convert anyone, but it can help reassure a person with what you call "nascent faith sense" that he is not loosing his mind, and it can help prevent the complete marginalization of Christian intellectuals.<br /><br />I've been thinking a good deal today about "seeing" spiritual truths. This hasn't happened to me very often, and in some cases it accepts a naturalistic explanation; but then again, there are those other cases.JMSmithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-80655755767544841342011-01-26T08:32:30.066+11:002011-01-26T08:32:30.066+11:00@Jonathon: There is a further reference in Matthew...@Jonathon: There is a further reference in Matthew (13:14) that gets at the same concept:<br /><em>And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:</em> (KJV) ...Where "Esaias" is the Greek form of Isaiah (an entire book of verbal Rorschach tests if there ever was one).<br /><br />See also Jeremiah (5:21) in the OT:<br /><em>Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:</em><br /><br />Moreover, there's a sub-theme throughout the NT that it's indeed a lack of sensitivity to this "sixth" sense that prevents spiritual understanding. Take Paul's (Acts 7:51) comment that, <em>Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.</em> ...Where the metaphor of (lack of) circumcision is a very graphic stand-in for (lack of) sensitivity and would've been clear to a (largely) Jewish audience.<br /><br />I hope it helps.mnlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07816137508182175224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-72358467439993661772011-01-26T06:18:29.854+11:002011-01-26T06:18:29.854+11:00Great post SP. For the record, I am a WASP. I was ...Great post SP. For the record, I am a WASP. I was taking that stance to test the authenticity and quality of this blog. <br /><br />So mote it be.Nietzschenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-73259714103095218062011-01-26T06:13:13.215+11:002011-01-26T06:13:13.215+11:00That's depressing, Black Death. But I want to ...That's depressing, Black Death. But I want to see more.<br /><br />:-(Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-66132429780182440842011-01-26T04:55:59.109+11:002011-01-26T04:55:59.109+11:00More Detroit pix:
http://www.spiegel.de/internati...More Detroit pix:<br /><br />http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,739986,00.htmlBlack Deathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-91572232209170146122011-01-25T22:55:59.742+11:002011-01-25T22:55:59.742+11:00You're basically right. Logic still has its us...You're basically right. Logic still has its use, of course. For one, you can use it to demonstrate the atheist's own faith. Everyone has degrees of faith (in certain authority, in logic, in his senses, etc.), but some people, somewhat arbitrarily, just cry, "Foul!" whenever it extends beyond the strictly empirical.<br /><br />Once someone like Ben can be shown that he in fact must have what he claims to despise, namely belief in the super-sensible, he might begin to despise it less.<br /><br />Ultimately, one has to see. But the Light Himself is available to all, and logic is a pretty damn good tool for clearing away a lot of those cataracts. Very many atheists reject God because they're convinced no educated, logical man could maintain His existence. And they really want to be bright; they want to consider themselves reasonable men. Who wouldn't? Then their vanity competes with their faith, and it usually wins. So if you simply show how and why there's no incompatibility between educated intelligence and faith, you've cleared a major blockage.<br /><br />The existence of God doesn't require much faith, anyway. That can be demonstrated using premises almost all sane men accept.Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-69444114834682294242011-01-25T22:32:57.997+11:002011-01-25T22:32:57.997+11:00@Locard.
Thanks for dropping by.
The concept of ...@Locard.<br /><br />Thanks for dropping by.<br /><br />The concept of the elect is parallel to the concept of the called. I think that being open to this "noetic" sense is what makes us members of the club.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-11334587835559163102011-01-25T22:29:40.479+11:002011-01-25T22:29:40.479+11:00@Novaseeker
I think the major problem with this N...@Novaseeker<br /><br />I think the major problem with this Noetic sense is in its acuity. How to percieve reality with a cloudy eye is the issue. However what needs to be asserted by Christians is its legitimacy and its limits. <br /><br />With regard to the Atheists, I think that there exist two kinds. Those who have not got the sense and are therefore inculpable, and those who have the sense but suppress it actively. I've read quite a few atheist biographies where the atheists have had nagging doubts about their atheism, they're the ones suppressing the noetic sense for whatever reason.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-59514555060029575942011-01-25T22:17:33.757+11:002011-01-25T22:17:33.757+11:00@ Anon 6:34
I keep bleating on about this, but th...@ Anon 6:34<br /><br />I keep bleating on about this, but the fundamental question that we conservatives don't ask ourselves is why has conservatism failed? The right seems to ignore this question much to its detriment.<br /><br />Diagnosis is the precondition to cure. And wrong diagnosis leads to wrong cures. I think the fundamental mistakes that conservatives have made is arguing their position on leftist terms. We've tried a secular revival of conservatism and it has failed. Time to change tack.<br /><br />I think what the early Christians were concentrating on was not the continuation of Roman or Christian culture, but they concentrated on pleasing God. Get this priority right and all else will follow.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-58512782232228889792011-01-25T22:12:27.078+11:002011-01-25T22:12:27.078+11:00@Anon 6:27
There is too much noise and too much d...@Anon 6:27<br /><br /><i>There is too much noise and too much distraction in modern society. No time to reflect, no silence, no time for finding Him.</i><br /><br />If He wants you He'll make himself noticed. He'll shout. The problem will be like Lewis's, trying to ignore him. Unfortunately for some people their culpability will be in their being too successful in ignoring Him.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.com