My original argument:
(1) Sense of the Numinous evokes religious devotion
(2) The sense of the numinous is the sense of the special nature of being
(3) Thus being itself, the ground of being, is the object of religious devotion
(4) whatever is the fit object of religious devotion (the thing that evokes it at the core in the first place) is defined as "God."
(5) since we know this special sense of being existing then QED God exists.
Here's the version he restructured:
(1) For many people, the “sense of the numinous” evokes feelings of religious devotion. [Premise 1]
(2) For [some of(?)] those people, this “sense of the numinous” results from a perception of the juxtaposition of the finite nature of ourselves and the infinite nature of the universe, and contemplation of the “special nature of being” which is rationally inferred on the basis of these perceptions. [Premise 2]
(3) This “special nature of being” refers to the necessary existence of a “ground of all being” or “being itself” as the basis of reality. [Premise 3]
(4) These perceptions and the inferred “special nature of being” meet our criteria of epistemic judgment. [Premise 4]
(5) If certain perceptions or inferences meet our criteria of epistemic judgment, then it is rationally warranted to conclude that the perceptions, and that which is inferred on their basis, accurately represents the nature of reality. [Premise 5]
(6) For many people, feelings of religious devotion are evoked by that which results from contemplation of the “ground of all being” or “being itself” as the basis of all reality, which they are rationally warranted in taking to accurately represent the nature of reality. [From 1~5]
(7) For these people, the “ground of being” or “being itself” is itself the object or source of the evoked feelings of religious devotion. [Premise 6]
(8) Whatever is the object or source of feelings of religious devotion can be reasonably defined as “God”. [Premise 7]
(9) There are people who are rationally warranted in concluding that reality contains as its basis that which we can reasonably call "God".
[Conclusion, from 6, 7, & 8]
I agree that his version is closer to being a more formally correct version. I studied Perlman's non formal logic and I don't think it has to be formally correct to be logically valid or to make sense as an idea. Of atheists mock and ridicule it saying that's the 'ravings ofa mad man" and that it's terrible makes no sense. They have said "you are the only person in the world who thinks the way you do." My ideas are so way out so they so stupid. But if you look at the content mine and his, the only difference is a big of teaking to explain more about why each move is the way it is.
I had explained that myself anyway, I just didn't do it in each line, I did it analysis after each line, what's the difference as long as the ideas are the same the reasons for them are out there? But of course Spacemonkey doesn't seem to understand what I'm saying, even he is very intelligent and I'm not criticizing his abilities. Here is the full presentation I made:
Definitions:
Sense of the numinous: intuitive sense that some special quality or attribute obtains to some aspect of reality such that it points to a larger all embracing truth, some realm of the divine, or some divine aspect of reality. (numinous means "spiritual" form the Greek Penuma).
Ground of being: (aka "being itself") The basic aspect of being that is not contingent are particular to any temporal or temporary or contingent aspect of beings or a being, but is eternal, ontologically necessary, and upon which the individual beings are predicted.
religious: Human tendency to identify the set of problems related to the nature of being human, the way in which humans define the nature of their own existence and that of other humans with respect to meaning or purpose on an ontological level, and the attempt to mediate an ultimate transfomrative experience through ritual or other means such that the sense of problematic is resolved in the transformative power.
Religious Devotion: Personal commitment ot a form of medication (see above).
Basic assumptions: all arguments are based upon assumption, even in scientific studies. This is not an argument it's just the background to the argument based upon things I generally assume about the sources of our knowledge at the most basic level.
(1) The argument assumes that all human understanding of the nature of reality begins with the phenomenological level. That is to say the categories of thought suggested to us by our sense data.
(2) Phenomenological level is predicated upon the five senses in addition to some insinuative senses that humans believe obtain from the nature of being human. (note: this is not necessarily esp or psychic power, just the regular sense of intuition). I include the intuitive because I'm talking about the most basic epistemology. Included with intuition is tacit knowing. It's a psychological function. I'm not saying that our knowledge of the world rests upon this, but it is part of the mix of sources that goes into our understanding of what's real.
(3) Even our basic trust of "official" or "proven" or "empirical" "facts" are based upon, in the final analysis, the extent to which the regular nature of our perceptions have led us to trust such things. For example mathematics is trusted by mathematics because they study it. It may not be trusted by fish mongers or pig iron collectors becuase they have no experiential basis for placing trust in mathematics. They have not studied it.
(4) The extent to which the trust that which we place our confidence in is related to the extent to which such sources meet the criteria:
(a) regular
(b) consistent
(c) shared (inter-subjective)
(d) promotes navigation in the world and in life.
By "navigation in the world and in life" I mean we can use the perceptions to get by, either in physically understanding the world, or emotionally coping with the world. In this way we form trust about perceptions if, and only if, they work, they help us in the process of coping and understanding.
(5) If we can logically place confidence in a proposition, and that confidence is born out in some way (vis the criteria just outlined) then are justified in our confidence and the proposition in which we place confidence is rationally warranted.
Argument:
premise:
(1) Sense of the Numinous evokes religious devotion
Premise:
(2) The sense of the numinous is the sense of the special nature of being
Inferense
(3) Thus: Therefore being itself, the ground of being, is the object of religious devotion
inferense
(4) whatever is the fit object of religious devotion (the thing that evokes it at the core in the first place) is defined as "God."
conclusion
(5) since we have properly basic reason to assume this special sense of being exists as the outcome of our perceptions, since it meets the criteria of epistemic judgment, we are rationally warranted in placing confidence in the hypothesis that "the sense of the numinous" and it's relation to the eternal necessary aspects of being are indications of the divine at the basis of reality.
Now let's go over again and I'll explain why I draw these conclusions:
premise:
(1) Sense of the Numinous evokes religious devotion
this is a statement based upon empirical observations made by anthropologists, historians of religion and other social social scientist. The idea of a sense of numinous is old and is well documented in may areas: the works of Marcea Eliade, Karl karene and studies by Ralph Hood, W.E. Stace, William James and others. All of this body of work from scholars and historians link the sense of the numinous to the orignis of religion.
The old 19th century sociological approach was to assume that religion was about explaining nature. That's becasue they were structural functionalists and they were trying justify their theory that things exist in social structure because they serve a function to the tribe; they did not understand the sense of the numinous as a serving a function, because they didn't have it and they shaped early man in their own images.
Social scientists don't make those assumptions now. Now we look for the real reasons people think things, by listening to them on their own terms.
Premise:
(2) The sense of the numinous is the sense of the special nature of being
There is a link from the concept of sense of the numinous to the concept of eternal necessary being (being itself). That is through the perception of the juxtaposition between infinite and finite. In other words, we sense our limitations as temporal creatures, vs the endless nature of the entire universe, we sense our smallness against the backdrop of the vast universe, in making these perceptions the sense of the numinous is evoked and we connect that psychologically to a sense of the nature of what it means to be (that is demonstrated through the studies on mystical experience--one of the major aspects of mystical experience is that juxtaposition between infinite and finite.
So by contrasting between of being as a whole vs our own limited nature, we link the sense of the numinous to being because its evoked by contemplation of being.
Inferense
(3) Thus: Therefore being itself, the ground of being, is the object of religious devotion.
what that sentence means is what I just said above. We draw certain conclusions psychologically form the experience of this juxtaposition that creates a link between being and the numinous, that link tells us that this special nature of the numinous is based in the eternal necessary nature of being itself. In other words the eternal necessary aspects of being (the vast universe for example) as opposed to any one particular being that is merely temporal and quickly vanishing (my own finite existence) grounds the sense of the numinous in the concepts of eternal necessary being.
In other words we derive from these experiences of nature, such as the starry sky over the night time desert, the sense that the eternal and necessary aspects of being are where the divine aspects of reality are located.
inferense
(4) whatever is the fit object of religious devotion (the thing that evokes it at the core in the first place) is defined as "God."
This sentence is logically derived from the information given previously and it just says that when we think about the nature of religion (apart form hating it) whatever evokes the psychological sense of the numinous is a valid object of worship, why? Because that's what worship is, it's commitment and devotion to the special nature of reality perceived in this thing called "sense of the numinous." Since that's the center and origin of religion anyway it's the final orbiter as to what is sacred.
the sense of the numinous itself is a sense of the sacred. we can put this into a syllogism
*whatever evokes the sacred is a fit object of worship
*the eternal and necessary aspects of being evoke the sacred
*therefore the eternal necessary aspects of being are fit objects of worship.
now we come to the conclusion.
conclusion
(5) since we have properly basic reason to assume this special sense of being exists as the outcome of our perceptions, since it meets the criteria of epistemic judgment, we are rationally warranted in placing confidence in the hypothesis that "the sense of the numinous" and it's relation to the eternal necessary aspects of being are indications of the divine at the basis of reality.
In other words it's just the logical outcome of what's said above. the eternal necessary nature of being (or our perceptions of same) motivate the basis of religious devotion and connect them to these aspects of being which are designated as 'ground of being.' Therefore, we are justified or rationally warranted in assuming that or in placing confidence in the proposition we are actually sensing some divine aspect to reality.
this divine aspect of reality is what the term "God" stands for.
We can make a syllogistic argument:
*whatever evokes the sacred is a fit object of worship
*the eternal and necessary aspects of being evoke the sacred
*therefore the eternal necessary aspects of being are fit objects of worship.
*"God" is the designation for the fit object of worship
*Ground of being is a fit object of worship (from above)
*therefore we are rationally warranted in thinking of ground of being as "God."
Premise
*whatever is the ground of being has an actual existence according to the definition above as "eternal" and "necessary" aspects of being
*We are justified in thinking of the ground of Being as "God" since it evokes the numinous and is a fit object of worship; the term "God" designates a fit object of worship
*therefore, we are rationally warranted in thinking that God has a real an actual existence as the ground of being.
We could go further and argue that in experiencing this realization we find the epistemic criteria are met and thus it works as a means of navigation in the world, and that is the ground for epistemic judgment, in other words for deciding that it's real.
the overall conclusion: we are rationally warranted for concluding that reality contains as it's basis that which we call "God."
I grant that some of the reasons might be better expressed by Spacemonkey and that perhaps doing it his way is better, even though I like mine for its streamlined nature, fewer lines. All he did was put sme of the explanation in further premises but long as the content is there I don't see why it really matters. The atheists are acting this is retarded to this way. It appears that the can't understand concepts. They can't think logically either. All they can think about is form.
another atheist named Electric Skeptic says:
But SpaceMonkey's version is far better than yours. It is much more exact, with much less question begging, and requires anyone who disagrees to be far more specific in specifying exactly what they disagree with - which would enable the person posting it to be able to better rebut their rebuttal.I don't see why that would not all be there in the analysis anyway, but be that as it may, I decided to go for the pithy comment rather than argue. So I said "then you better get busy."
ES: Busy doing what?
Meta: debating the argument because now that you admit it's good I'll be using it all the time.
ES says:
Oh, I getcha. I admitted that SpaceMonkey's version is much better framed - I didn't admit that it's a good argument
But I'll certainly tackle his version, if you'd like.
Spacemonkey says:
Notice that there are now many more premises which an opponent might reasonably wish to challenge. But note also that no-one can rationally reject the conclusion now without also specifying exactly which premise or premises they disagree with and why.
While disagreement is still open, he has to demonstrate which premise he disagrees with and why. So does he? No! of course not, he never has. In fact 90% of the time when I challenge them to show what's wrong with any of my premises they never do. Once I put all the first premises to all my God arguments in a list to see which they agree withe (not telling them they were premises to God arguments) they did not disagree with a single one,
No comments:
Post a Comment