Freethought & Rationalism Archive

xeren · 11-13-2002, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taffy Lewis:
xeren,
I doubt many theists would argue that our senses are not generally reliable. The point is the theist would find a demand for independent confirmation of religious experience to be as absurd as a demand for independent confirmation of sensory experience. Clearly one cannot give independent confirmation that our senses are reliable. So why demand more from religious experience?

It's a double standard to require independent confirmation of the reliability of religious experience and not demand the same thing for sensory experience.

Okay, NOW i understand what you are saying, you weren't arguing about the unreliability of the senses.

But there is no double standard for religious experiences, because, despite your claim, people DO demand independent confirmation of sensory experiences.

When someone claims they were assaulted, and they point someone out in the line up, the police don't automatically find him guilty of the crime. Because they cannot get independent confirmation of the victim's sensory experiences, they must find corroborating evidence. Why? Because the victim could have mistakenly thought someone in the line up was the person that assaulted her. The police don't doubt that she saw a man in front of her while she was being assaulted, they just have no way of knowing she pointed out the right man without some sort of corroborating evidence.

And while i don't doubt that people have religious experiences (i used to have them), what i do doubt is that anyone can be sure these experiences are veridical.
So, yes, while it may ridiculous to ask for independent confirmation of religious experiences, that doesn't make them true. Because NO ONE can offer that confirmation, it makes them all the more suspect.

-xeren

ashibaka · 11-13-2002, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GTX:
Who says it's a feeling that's going to be noticable right away? It is a relationship with God that you build. There will be no kind of hallucinagenic immediate response.

Not noticable right away?

"God, are you there..."

...

"God, are you there..."

...

"God, are you there..."

...[warm fuzzy]

"I love you God!"

[inner HALLELUJIAH!]

Something like that?

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: ashibaka ]

Taffy Lewis · 11-13-2002, 05:23 PM

xeren,

Quote:

But there is no double standard for religious experiences, because, despite your claim, people DO demand independent confirmation of sensory experiences.

When someone claims they were assaulted, and they point someone out in the line up, the police don't automatically find him guilty of the crime. Because they cannot get independent confirmation of the victim's sensory experiences, they must find corroborating evidence. Why? Because the victim could have mistakenly thought someone in the line up was the person that assaulted her. The police don't doubt that she saw a man in front of her while she was being assaulted, they just have no way of knowing she pointed out the right man without some sort of corroborating evidence.

This is merely a case of checking one sensory experience with other sensory experiences. This is not a case of independently verifying sensory experience in the sense relevant to our discussion.

When I speak of independent verification of sensory experience I'm referring to something other than sensory experience.

If one can judge one sensory experience with another sensory experience and call this "independent verification" (as you do in your example) then the theist can appeal to some set of experiences of God to judge any particular purported experience of God and say that he has independently verified his experiences. If the former is not objectionable then neither should the latter be.

The important point is that you have presupposed that most of your sensory experiences are genuine. If you can presuppose that sensory experience is generally reliable then why can't the theist do the same with regard to her experiences of God?

xeren · 11-13-2002, 05:39 PM

I never meant that coroborating evidence was the same as independent confirmation of the victim's sensory experience. What i meant was because there can be no independent confirmation of someone's sensory experience, we use corroborating evidence as our next best bet.

And the corroborating evidence for god is non-existent in my opinion, but that its another thread altogether.

But my point stands:

Quote:

...while i don't doubt that people have religious experiences (i used to have them), what i do doubt is that anyone can be sure these experiences are veridical.
So, yes, while it may ridiculous to ask for independent confirmation of religious experiences, that doesn't make them true. Because NO ONE can offer that confirmation, it makes them all the more suspect.

xeren · 11-13-2002, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taffy Lewis:

The important point is that you have presupposed that most of your sensory experiences are genuine. If you can presuppose that sensory experience is generally reliable then why can't the theist do the same with regard to her experiences of God?

Yes, I presuppose that my sensory experiences are genuine, so i suppose that the theist could do the same.

Doesn't make either of them true though...

Fiach · 11-13-2002, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taffy Lewis:
Keith Russell,

>How does one know that one's sensory experience >isn't illusory or NOT an hallucination ?

Only if the experience is recorded in some way by a non-biased technology. A Videotape, camcorder, or if the experience was experienced simultaneously by all 8 billion people of the Earth, and its content was identical in each of the 8 billion.

>The theist will find your question about >experiences of God just as absurd as you find >the above question.

Sorry, but perhaps I am biased. I feel that all assumptions are to be questioned. All claims should be verifiable and then verified to be even considered.

>From an epistemic point of view, there is a >clear parity.

I don't see how. Mystical experiences or experiences of gods, angels, demons are so varied in content and subjective impressions are almost always flawed. The well know inability of psychotic people to distinguish hallucinations from reality makes all such experiences questionable. This includes hallucinations that we know are false, i.e. regressing to Joan of Arc but being unable to speak Middle French, or being Cleopatra but unable to speak Greek or Coptic.

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Taffy Lewis ]

A final condition on any claim, is that the burden of proof for the reality of the event is on the claimant not the sceptic. That includes all scientific claims which are handled that way. It should also apply to metaphysical claims or sceptics have no moral nor intellectual obligation to believe them.

Fiach

Jobar · 11-13-2002, 07:58 PM

Taffy and Amie, the problem with your statements concerning God vs. my statements concerning my sensory impressions, is a matter of consistency.

When I try to analyze my sensory input, I find that it is both internally and externally consistent with the idea of an external, objective world which my senses report in a fairly dependable and understandable manner. Internally consistent, in that my inputs make sense to me in my head- they allow me to interact with what I perceive as the outside world, and give me considerable predictive power. Externally consistent, because when I ask other people if they perceive the same things I do, they agree (within the limits imposed by the fact they are not perceiving from my unique viewpoint.)

Your statements about God are certainly not externally consistent- not only do we skeptics see nothing which looks in the least like the God you try to describe; but when you attempt to make your description jibe with the rest of the objective world, they don't. I submit (though of course I'm not in your head, so I don't claim I can prove this) that your god-notions aren't internally consistent either- I think you compartmentalize your thoughts concerning God, and avoid mixing them with your thoughts about living day to day. You have to- otherwise the cognitive dissonance would be unbearable.

Tercel · 11-13-2002, 08:18 PM

Jobar,
You say you perceive the world as consistent. Do I take it you have never had an experience of not being able to find something that you could have sworn you left right there? Assume then you did have such an experience. Would you then doubt the consistency of the world? Or would you choose to doubt your own memory in favour of believing in the consistency of the world?
I would note that your belief in the consistency of the world is dependent upon what your memory tells you about previous sensory experience. Are you then rationally justified in doubting your own memory or are you presupposing the consistency of the world above and beyond what is warrented by the evidence?

Amie · 11-13-2002, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:
Taffy and Amie, the problem with your statements concerning God vs. my statements concerning my sensory impressions, is a matter of consistency.

or quite possibly a matter of perceptions Jobar...

Quote:

Internally consistent, in that my inputs make sense to me in my head- they allow me to interact with what I perceive as the outside world, and give me considerable predictive power.

as do mine...

Quote:

Externally consistent, because when I ask other people if they perceive the same things I do, they agree (within the limits imposed by the fact they are not perceiving from my unique viewpoint.)

as do most of mine...

Quote:

Your statements about God are certainly not externally consistent

I agree they are not externally consistent to skeptics...

Quote:

I submit (though of course I'm not in your head, so I don't claim I can prove this) that your god-notions aren't internally consistent either

I disagree with you on this one Jobar, they make absolute perfect sense to me...
maybe I am misinterpreting your statement though...

Quote:

I think you compartmentalize your thoughts concerning God, and avoid mixing them with your thoughts about living day to day. You have to- otherwise the cognitive dissonance would be unbearable.

hmmm well I think about God everyday however I am not defined by my God belief, it is one very important aspect of my life but I am able to separate my thoughts...

gilly54 · 11-13-2002, 09:06 PM

There is a thread very similar to this one here:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000692" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000692</a>

Twelve pages and counting...

I have become inured at theists who put the onus of DISproving there is a god on me. When I ask them to prove to me there IS a god, I get the typical ingrained, parrotted blather.

Gilly

Edited to add: Sorry, I'm not as tolerant and diplomatic as usual tonight.
We started treatment on a 35 year old woman with advanced cervical cancer. So to you theists, Pray to God for her, okay? If she is cancer-free when I see her tomorrow, then I'll believe. Deal?

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: gilly54 ]

11-13-2002, 09:06 PM	#30
gilly54 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New Almaden, California Posts: 917	There is a thread very similar to this one here: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000692" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000692</a> Twelve pages and counting... I have become inured at theists who put the onus of DISproving there is a god on me. When I ask them to prove to me there IS a god, I get the typical ingrained, parrotted blather. Gilly Edited to add: Sorry, I'm not as tolerant and diplomatic as usual tonight. We started treatment on a 35 year old woman with advanced cervical cancer. So to you theists, Pray to God for her, okay? If she is cancer-free when I see her tomorrow, then I'll believe. Deal? [ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: gilly54 ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-13-2002, 07:58 PM	#27
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Taffy and Amie, the problem with your statements concerning God vs. my statements concerning my sensory impressions, is a matter of consistency. When I try to analyze my sensory input, I find that it is both internally and externally consistent with the idea of an external, objective world which my senses report in a fairly dependable and understandable manner. Internally consistent, in that my inputs make sense to me in my head- they allow me to interact with what I perceive as the outside world, and give me considerable predictive power. Externally consistent, because when I ask other people if they perceive the same things I do, they agree (within the limits imposed by the fact they are not perceiving from my unique viewpoint.) Your statements about God are certainly not externally consistent- not only do we skeptics see nothing which looks in the least like the God you try to describe; but when you attempt to make your description jibe with the rest of the objective world, they don't. I submit (though of course I'm not in your head, so I don't claim I can prove this) that your god-notions aren't internally consistent either- I think you compartmentalize your thoughts concerning God, and avoid mixing them with your thoughts about living day to day. You have to- otherwise the cognitive dissonance would be unbearable.

11-13-2002, 08:18 PM	#28
Tercel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: New Zealand Posts: 1,315	Jobar, You say you perceive the world as consistent. Do I take it you have never had an experience of not being able to find something that you could have sworn you left right there? Assume then you did have such an experience. Would you then doubt the consistency of the world? Or would you choose to doubt your own memory in favour of believing in the consistency of the world? I would note that your belief in the consistency of the world is dependent upon what your memory tells you about previous sensory experience. Are you then rationally justified in doubting your own memory or are you presupposing the consistency of the world above and beyond what is warrented by the evidence?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.