Synaesthesia

Jack,
People have perceptions of God. I would say quite the opposite of what you do and hold that is is those belief systems that require us to presuppose the accuracy of our perceptions that are based upon faith.

Ted Hoffman

Synaesthesia
People also have perceptions of UFOs, ghosts, Jesus and so on. Perception is an unstable person can give very funny inputs, even when it doesnt, there are people who interpret what they perceive in a self centered manner. There is the problem of so-called worldviews or beliefs.
When a christian survives a bombing, they say that God saved them. When their instincts tell them things that turn out to be true, they say God told them. Then there is mass hysteria, auditory hallucinations ,visual hallucinations and so on.
When a desire is so strong, then the object of desire can be perceived. Or the imagination can be made "real" in the mind of the desirer. It happens all the time. Perception or no perception, people have to deal with cognitive dissonance.
Perception, like any other tool, can be misused in the wrong hands.
In such cases, only neutral observers can judge that what is being perceived by the other parties is not real.

Who has perceived God?

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

The biggest problem the literalist Christians have isn't the dubious nature of the "perceptions" of God (which apparently consist mostly of a feeling of "inspiration" when reading the Bible), but the much more concrete perceptions of things like ice cores, sediment layers in lakes, the fossil record, radiometric dates, DNA analysis, dinosaur footprints and dessication cracks in multiple layers of "Flood deposits", tree rings, historical records from people who strangely didn't notice the Flood, the lack of any change in ancient languages attributable to the Tower of Babel incident, etc etc etc...

Of course, metaphysical naturalism has none of these problems.

Ted Hoffman

How I hate it when people start threads then abandon them without nary a word.

SeaKayaker

Sorry for the delay, but I am busy. There have been some very interesting ideas about perception thrown about. From these, it appears that Jack the Bodiless and Jaliet place a high view on perception but that Synaesthesia sees disadvantages in this view.

Synaesthesia, Jack the Bodiless:

Synaesthesia, I find this a very interesting comment. If a person accepts perception as his ultimate authority, what means does he have of discounting the alleged perceptions of others? As you say, it takes faith to believe our perceptions. I realize that Jack the Bodiless and Jaliet deny this vigorously, but as they have presented no logical argument against it, I will continue to maintain it.

Jaliet:
You bring up the issue of interpretation of perceptions. If we can only acquire knowledge through ourselves in some form (perception, etc.), how can you know that perception is accurate? I have asked you this many times, but I ask it again since I still do not see any way for you to prove perception’s accuracy.

How can you, with your perceptions, judge whether people actually perceived what they claimed to perceive, and, if they did, whether their perceptions were an accurate reflection of reality?

This brings up the issue of neutrality. Is there any such thing as a person who is neutral on this issue (the existence of God)? I maintain that neutrality is impossible. If you would like to discuss this in detail, we can do so, but I maintain that the claims of Christianity eliminate the possibility of neutrality.
This also brings up the issue of a standard. Until this point, perception has been your standard. Now, you are establishing a standard by which you judge the perceptions of others. Would you care to describe this standard you place above perception?

Answering this within the Christian worldview, I will reply that everyone perceives God, but that unbelievers refuse to acknowledge this. In fact, if the Christian God exists, this must be the case. Within your worldview, no one has true perceptions of God (or so it would appear, although you could try to get technical and offer a different definition of “true”). Therefore, we see the total antithesis between our two worldviews, one so vast that we cannot must use an indirect method of evaluating them.

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

[Edited for formatting]

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: SeaKayaker ]</p>

SeaKayaker

Jack the Bodiless,

I trust that your statement about the nature of a Christian’s perceptions of God do not apply to my argument as I am not arguing from perception.

We could go on indefinitely (or at least for half of an indefinite length of time) about these and similar “problem” issues for both the Christian and the metaphysical naturalist. At the end, I think that we would find that each worldview could furnish a reasonable explanation (some more plausible than others) for these sorts of issues. For that reason, I am approaching this from a different angle; I am asking, what right does anybody have to believe that his perceptions accurately reflect reality.

Do you think that you could define metaphysical naturalism by stating its relationship to perception (“the worldview adhering strictly to perception and man’s ability to reason apart from any god…” or something of that sort)? I can see potential flaws in such a definition, but I do think that it demonstrates the metaphysical naturalist’s high view of perception. Therefore, he should be very eager to give his justification for believing that his perception accurately reflects reality.

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

Ted Hoffman

Seakasayer The terse apology has been accepted.
You have agreed that perception "works". How would it work if it were not accurate?
Perception can be tested for accuracy scientific experiments rely on perception. You are basically saying here that scientific experiments are not accurate.

What does the word Accurate Mean in this context? How do you determine whats accurate without the help of perception?
By asking them for details, by applying logic and reason to the perceptions of others and testing it against human experience.

If you want to find out how this is done, read this thread where a well-educated, level-headed christian claimed that God directly intervened to save him from Hornets:
Check this link:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000013&p=1" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000013&p=1</a>

Are you asserting that Agnostics are insincere, what about weak atheists?
How so? What claims do Christians make that other religions dont make?
I am sorry to disapoint you, but perception is still the tool. A jury in court is relied upon to make a sentence. It is assumed that they are neutral and are assumed to be able to pass an impartial sentence.
The same idea is used to judge what other people claim to perceive if they are unusual.
Rigorous investigation is the standard used.
How do you suggest I have perceived God?
How have you perceived God?

I find it disappointing that you have ignored a number of my questions - esp concerning the other means of acquiring knowledge - other than perception, that you have in mind.
If you are too busy to respond fully to posts, then maybe you should just let us know. I respond fully to your posts and I believe its only fair that you do the same to mine.

And which is this indirect method that you avoid mentioning?

Jack the Bodiless

Belief in a consistent "real world" which generates consistent perceptions, and the reliability of our senses and reasoning, is axiomatic: these are assumptions that must be made. As pretty much everything we perceive confirms this assumption, we accept it because it works. If you wish to call this "faith", then so be it, provided you accept that this "faith" is being continually justified by the ongoing consistency of what we perceive: it's the "faith" that the Sun will rise tomorrow, not the "faith" that we will be carried off to a magical wonderland after death if we've been good boys and girls. Too many apologists have sought to equate our "faith" in perception with religious "faith": this is a strawman argument.
Again, we have answered this. It isn't possible to absolutely prove that perception is accurate: we assume that it is (an assumption justified by the fact that it works). But a presuppositionalist should not be asking this question: this assumption is a presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, and therefore does not require proof, just as a Christian presuppositionalist regards the Bible as axiomatic and uses it without proof.
I disagree. There are no similar "problem" issues for the metaphysical naturalist, nor are there any reasonable explanations for the Christian except "Genesis is allegorical". Inconsistency with perception is a Christian problem that metaphysical naturalism does not share.
Sounds OK, provided "man’s ability to reason apart from any god" isn't equated with "autonomous". We are autonomous from gods, but not from the "real world" which shaped us through evolution and continues to shape us through sensory input. And, as previously noted, evolution provides the rationale for why we have reliable senses: millions of years of natural selection.