In the comment section of the article "Demand for Empirical Evidence of God is Unfiar and Misleading," I had an exchange with Stewpid Monkey. this is a long exchanged and we covered some things that I think need to be said to deal with the issues brought up in the part of this article. So here is part of that exchange.
Meta: 1. "That is no contradiction. One can always move toward the infinite even if one never adhesives it. Besides that's not counting what happens after death. Once we are with God face to face (so to speak) we might told everything."
SM--First of all, I don't get your first sentence. Or rather I understand the spirit of what your saying, I don'think you have the proper verbage. Second, you answer is a non answer. You still haven't proven an "after life".
Meta: That's what "architect" thing in my spell check that rewrites posts. I don't always catch it.Instead of "adhesives" it should say "advances." We can advance toward an infinitely distant goal and never achieve it.
2. "He can tell us.All talk of God is analogical. Even if we don't really know it works to follow the course of the saints and mystics.It's empirically proven by psychology studies to work in that it produces a better life."
SM---WHAT? You make no sense here.
Meta: what I said makes perfect sense. If we don't know for sure that X is true of God but it works to follow it then it's ratioanl to follow it. It makes sense to do what works. Many empirical psychological studies show that having religious experiences, if one is blessed to have them, do affect people in ways that make their lives better than the lives of those who don't have them.
SM: "My question was how do you know what an unknowable (beyond your understand) diety wants. Your statement doesn't answer that."
Meta: Yes it does:
(1) We now by special revelation. God tells us so through the prophets and Apostles..
(2) People have experiences that are taken to be experiences f the divine. there are various reason to take them s such. I can go into that but I wont now. Given those reasons, look at what became of them as a result we see those experiences are very good for us. So ti works to follow the assumption that such experiences are those of the divine.
(3) The claims to underestimating are place holders. That's what we are saying when we say "they are analogical." They are analogy to the divine by comparing we know to what we don't know.
(4) obviously we can know somethings of the divine but not exhaustively. I've made this analogy before. Nuclear physics is beyond my understanding; but I do it exits and basically what its about. what I know about it is so elementary it's not false to say it's beyond my understanding.
what are the freaked out by this concept?
SM:"And what has been proven by psychological studies? Patients given sugar pills for diseases have worked as well. It's called a placebo effect. This does nothing to strengthen your stance."
Meta: that is hardly the summum bonum of psychology of religion.Placebo requires expectation; religious experiences are often totally unexpected. so that doesn't explain them away.
what they prove is that experiences of a type historically associated with God, aka "Mystical" are good for you and the result of having is it radically transforms one's life.
3. Your third and fourth answers to my comments run hand in hand. you state, "that is doesn't follow. Not even a logical statement. That's like saying "If we don't know what started the big bang expansion then we can't know anything about big bang." There are lots of things we know something about even though we don't know all.
that part that you don't put in quotes was the gist of my comment. you said: "If one aspect of your God is unknowable, then all aspects are unknowable."that is what I'm saying is BS. If one aspect is unknowable that certainly doesn't mean the whole is unknowable and did not say that.
SM:"---The big difference between your big bang anology and god are horribly incorrect."
Meta: why?
SM: "I will sum up the rest of your answers to my questions simply because they run together. Your example is incorrect simply becasue at no point have I said that the universe is a sentient being."
Meta: come on screw your head on straight. that has to do with an analogy. no analogy has to be totally correspondent in every single way with the thing it analogizes.
SM:"So yes, in that sense, we can know somethings about something but not everything. When it comes to the xian god (or any god for that matter), you are talking about a living thinking being. They problem that presents itself is that your gods who it is and what it is are tied together. As a being made of matter, I have my physical self and my abstract self that is based on the physical aspect. I.e. my mind is a product of my brain. What you are trying to pass off as truth is a mind existing without any physical entity."
Meta: that's a totally different matter. that's a totally separate issue form the analogies above. Now you have backpedaled dropping the assertion that to fail to know one this is to fail to know the anything.
SM:"This is impossible. I say impossible not with absolute knowledge, but functional practical knowledge."
Meta: what is? your statement is unclear. Are now back to saying that if we don't know everything single thing about something we can't know everything? that's ludicrously wrong. I've illustrated in many ways that it's wrong.
I do not know much about physicist but I do what it is that it exits.
ditto theory of m1 and m2
ditto string theory, ect ect
SM:"Ever see a disembodied mind? I don't think so. You said my statement is illocical, ( if one part of god is unknowable, then all of him is). This is a valid and logical argument."
Meta: No it's not. It's what atheists call "arguemnt from ignorance." I've answered in previous blog pieces.
(1) you are basing that entirely upon our sample of reality. Our sample of reality is based upon this plant and a bit of the moon and finds from long distances done by different types of telescopes. In other all scheme of things we are totally ignorant.
the rest of reality is huge evne if it' just our space/time. If it also consists of a multiverse infinite space/time continuum each one separate from the others we can never know what's out there. To then say that our little limited perspective is all here can be is absurd.
(2) you are begging the question to assume that just becuase biological life is that way that all forms fo thought would be that way too.
(3) God is not a biological life form so why expect him to be that way?
(4) there is evident of universal mind in panpsychism and the problem of temporal beginning and other areas.
SM:"You are just sidestepping the question by saying I am wrong or don't understand."
Meta: LOL. Saying your wrong is not side stepping it's direct clash. Try to learn something about argumentation!- 7:27 AM
- SM: "Once again, god's what he is is the same as who he is. There is no difference. You cannot claim knowledge of one and non knowledge of the other."
Meta: that's a meaningless atheist propaganda phrase. All you are really saying is 'let me do my reductionism thing so my straw man idea of God is the only valid one so I can have something to attack.
Your assertion of God as "what he is and who he is" comes from an understanding of Thomism, Thomas Ananias, the idea that God's existence is his essence. Nothing about that the puts God under the microscope and means that we have to have exhaustive knowledge about him or we can't know a single thing including his existence. that's a just a ridiculous notion.
anytime you say "Xi s beyond my understanding' you are saying "I know X exists." That's part of knowing it's beyond your understanding. That phrase does not and cannot mean 'I don't a know a single thing about it including its' existence."
one must know at least that one doesn't know.
You are also overlooking compete the other half of the equation. The full statement is that left brain collapses in on itself when you try to make that the only form knowledge.We need both left and right and experience of God is right brain that's what we need for understanding God.
from that we construct place holders which are analogies that bridge the gap somewhat by comparing what we don't know to what we do know.
the kind of knowledge of God that we have directly is inactive right brain thinking, experience first hand. Intellect, book knowledge, things that can be quantified, as people said in the oughts "not so much."
SM:"Your last sentence has no bearing. We cannot conduct experiments on your supposed god."
Meta: We don't have to. That's not the only form of knowledge
SM: "As far as observations and knowing something intellectually; most people believed that more heat escapes from your uncovered head during winter months. Hell, it sounds intellectually viable and is sound in common sense. It's absolutely false."
Meta: that is argument from analogy. arguemnt from analogies is not proof.
Meta:You are confused. You can know something about a thing and not know all about it. You can know it experimentally and not know it intellectually."
that is absolutely true. We know that's the case because we can do it all the all the time. Left brain right brain kind of stuff. There is a right brain. I know atheists are scared to death of feelings and experiences but that is a valid from of knowledge. For examples that's the only way we know we are loved. mot atheist don't like love and think it's BS. that's because they are afraid of right brain knowledge.
I've been told by a neurologist that there is no evidence that left brain brain thing applies to all forms of thinking. Yet it's a good metaphor for these types of knowledge. - 7:29 AM
35 comments:
I like to use my relationship with my cat as an analogy here. There is a lot about me that is unknowable to my cat. But that certainly doesn't mean my cat doesn't know me or have interactions with me, or that I am unknowable to my cat, just because she can't grasp my university education or conceive of what I do when I go to my job! I think God is like that for us. We can know God as God relates to us and to this world. Beyond that, God is beyond us.
that's a great analogy. Of course you are not infinite but why would the principle not be the same?
(Yes I really means not) ;-)
The analogy doesn't work for me. The first problem is that there is a two-way understanding gap - not simply an issue of one lacking a full understanding of the other. While it is true that the cat doesn't understand everything about you, it is also true that you don't understand everything about the cat. Could you really say that you can see the world from the cat's perspective, and fully understand what its motivations and desires are? When you communicate with the cat, you don't really know that the cat understands what you're telling it in the same way you do.
The other issue is that the relationship between you and your cat is real. It is mutual - it goes two ways. You can see and feel the cat, and vice versa. Each of you provides something of tangible value to the other. You don't have to make up arguments to justify your belief that you have a relationship with the cat. It is objectively observable.
To answer your first objection, imagine having a relationship with your three year old self. If you have a good enough memory, you can understand a lot about your three year old self's motivations, thoughts, fears, etc, but he wouldn't be able to understand very much about you beyond an emotional level.
Your second objection doesn't really apply to this analogy because the analogy is supposed to support the idea that we can have a relationship, have some knowledge of, something that's beyond our understanding. Your objection is a slightly different question, and one that's been addressed many times here already. You're defining as 'real' whatever is objectively observable; you're assuming the very thing we've always been debating over!
You're defining as 'real' whatever is objectively observable; you're assuming the very thing we've always been debating over!
- That's one way of putting it. However, I think the REAL issue is that YOU assume the very thing that we've always been debating over.
Analogies are just analogies. I'm not a cat, and God is not me. So what? Not everything about the analogy is supposed to apply; the point of analogy is to illustrate a specific point, not to create a one-to-one correspondence between every aspect of the analogy and thing being analogized.
I do maintain that I can indeed feel God and experience God. Just because it can't be observed physically doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Blogger im-skeptical said...
The analogy doesn't work for me. The first problem is that there is a two-way understanding gap - not simply an issue of one lacking a full understanding of the other. While it is true that the cat doesn't understand everything about you, it is also true that you don't understand everything about the cat. Could you really say that you can see the world from the cat's perspective, and fully understand what its motivations and desires are? When you communicate with the cat, you don't really know that the cat understands what you're telling it in the same way you do.
All you are saying is there is a point that analogies break down. We know that, That doesn't mean it's not an apt analogy.There is probably no better one. That doesn't disprove the point,
The other issue is that the relationship between you and your cat is real. It is mutual - it goes two ways. You can see and feel the cat, and vice versa. Each of you provides something of tangible value to the other. You don't have to make up arguments to justify your belief that you have a relationship with the cat. It is objectively observable.
I can feel God's presence.I don't have to make it up, if there was no difference in effect no study would show differences in effect. After the experience has the same effect all studies do show that,no stud shows no effect of the experience they all show it has the same effect making your life better. so it's not made up it is real.
Please learn what begging the question means? you keep makimng that same mistake over and over again Like you really cannot lean the concept,
8:26 AM Delete
7th Stooge said...
To answer your first objection, imagine having a relationship with your three year old self. If you have a good enough memory, you can understand a lot about your three year old self's motivations, thoughts, fears, etc, but he wouldn't be able to understand very much about you beyond an emotional level.
excellent answer. That would be extremely galling to have to explain to your three year old self how you got to be the person you are now,
Your second objection doesn't really apply to this analogy because the analogy is supposed to support the idea that we can have a relationship, have some knowledge of, something that's beyond our understanding. Your objection is a slightly different question, and one that's been addressed many times here already. You're defining as 'real' whatever is objectively observable; you're assuming the very thing we've always been debating over!
a from of question begging still up to his old tricks.
Kristen said...
Analogies are just analogies. I'm not a cat, and God is not me. So what? Not everything about the analogy is supposed to apply; the point of analogy is to illustrate a specific point, not to create a one-to-one correspondence between every aspect of the analogy and thing being analogized.
exactly, well said,
I do maintain that I can indeed feel God and experience God. Just because it can't be observed physically doesn't mean it isn't happening.
it produces real effect that are not convincing explained by other means,
I do maintain that I can indeed feel God and experience God. Just because it can't be observed physically doesn't mean it isn't happening.
- Doesn't mean this relationship is real, either. It only means you are feeling something you don't understand.
it produces real effect that are not convincing explained by other means
- Unless you actually seek an explanation other than "God did it."
The point of the post is whether or not it's a contradiction to believe in something that's beyond our understanding. Take God out of it. There are physicists who believe in physical reality even though they think that this reality is beyond our understanding. Despite this, they think there are facts we humans can know about this reality. It's not totally incomprehensible, just incomprehensible in its totality.
The point of the post is whether or not it's a contradiction to believe in something that's beyond our understanding.
- I don't dispute that point. I certainly don't claim to have a full understanding of physical reality, either. But I hear claims from theists all the time that try to tell us they know the nature of God, and what God thinks, and what God wants, and what his goals are. It's only when you ask them to explain why some of these things seem to conflict logically with observed reality, that they begin to make excuses like "God is a mystery, and we can't fully understand him". I don't use my lack of understanding of reality to make excuses for why my beliefs don't agree with observed reality. For the most part, I have no such conflicts to make excuses for. If there are some things I believe that are not consistent with observed reality, that should be regarded as a failing on my part.
im-skeptical said...
I do maintain that I can indeed feel God and experience God. Just because it can't be observed physically doesn't mean it isn't happening.
- Doesn't mean this relationship is real, either. It only means you are feeling something you don't understand.
you an;t answer the arguments,you have absolutely no excuse because you have lost every God arguent
7:42 AM
im-skeptical said...
it produces real effect that are not convincing explained by other means
- Unless you actually seek an explanation other than "God did it."
your stupid little slogan doesn;t make God go away
m-skeptical said...
The point of the post is whether or not it's a contradiction to believe in something that's beyond our understanding.
- I don't dispute that point. I certainly don't claim to have a full understanding of physical reality, either. But I hear claims from theists all the time that try to tell us they know the nature of God, and what God thinks, and what God wants, and what his goals are.
we are not talking to other theists right now it;s stupid to turn every argent into a I hate god" pep rally, or even a aren;t theists generally bad at argument? rally.
It's only when you ask them to explain why some of these things seem to conflict logically with observed reality, that they begin to make excuses like "God is a mystery, and we can't fully understand him".
so what? I didn't say that so what's it doing here?
I don't use my lack of understanding of reality to make excuses for why my beliefs don't agree with observed reality. For the most part, I have no such conflicts to make excuses for. If there are some things I believe that are not consistent with observed reality, that should be regarded as a failing on my part.
what are your beliefs? worship science. I hate God because he competes with scene for my worship? the only beliefs you express are about what you hate and disbelieve
It's hard to hate something that doesn't exist, Joe. I'm not about hate.
(1) not at all
(2) you probably know in heart he;s real
- I don't dispute that point. I certainly don't claim to have a full understanding of physical reality, either. But I hear claims from theists all the time that try to tell us they know the nature of God, and what God thinks, and what God wants, and what his goals are. It's only when you ask them to explain why some of these things seem to conflict logically with observed reality, that they begin to make excuses like "God is a mystery, and we can't fully understand him". I don't use my lack of understanding of reality to make excuses for why my beliefs don't agree with observed reality. For the most part, I have no such conflicts to make excuses for. If there are some things I believe that are not consistent with observed reality, that should be regarded as a failing on my part.
But then your objection is really about religious fundamentalism. I agree with your criticisms of it. I don't like any kind of absolutism, whether it's religious, anti-religious, scientistic, etc.
I don't know skep well enough to say that he hates God. I would say that a lot of atheists I've interacted with seem to hate the idea of God and a lot of them hate religion. For them, God is a tyrannical bully and religion is a dangerous mental derangement.
There was an episode of Star Trek the Next Generation where the Enterprise encounters a species that communicates entirely in metaphor. A problem with this is that in order to make any sense at all, metaphors need to have a foundation in literal truth.
The same can be said of unknowability. It may be true that there are some aspects of God that are unknowable. But I don't think it makes sense to say that God is entirely unknowable. So the question becomes one of which aspects are knowable and how they are known.
But then your objection is really about religious fundamentalism.
- Fundamentalism? I'm not talking about a literalist biblical view of God. Joe expounds at great length on God's nature and his attributes. As do many other Christians who are not regarded as fundamentalists.
"- Doesn't mean this relationship is real, either. It only means you are feeling something you don't understand."
I am also feeling something you don't understand. When atheists try to make my experience consistent with their observed reality, their explanations fall short of actually explaining. As Joe says, trying to reduce the phenomenon to a purely physical cause, "loses the phenomenon" - it disappears amidst the inadequate explanations, which end up explaining something other than what I am describing.
I can't prove to you that this relationship is real. But I don't need to. I'm IN the relationship and feel no need to justify it to others. I can try to use analogies (like the cat analogy) to show why statements like "if one aspect of your God is unknowable, then all aspect are unknowable" really aren't true. But if you want to insist that God isn't real, that's your business. Just don't expect me to say, "Oh, you're right, I can't prove it to you so it can't be real." LOL
I am also feeling something you don't understand. When atheists try to make my experience consistent with their observed reality, their explanations fall short of actually explaining. As Joe says, trying to reduce the phenomenon to a purely physical cause, "loses the phenomenon" - it disappears amidst the inadequate explanations, which end up explaining something other than what I am describing.
- Yes, that's what we always hear. You always assume that you experience something that the rest of us don't. That's not true. We are all humans, and we all have the same kinds of experiences. What's different is the way we understand them. It's not necessary to ascribe everything to God. We can have a realistic understanding of what we feel without "losing the phenomenon". All we are losing is the fairy-tale.
I didn't say I experienced something others don't. Most people seem to feel something that makes them think there's more to life than just the physical. Most people are not atheists. What makes your understanding"realistic" and mine not? Only that you're privileging your understanding according to your own mindset: that only physical experiences can be real.
Eric Sotnak said...
There was an episode of Star Trek the Next Generation where the Enterprise encounters a species that communicates entirely in metaphor. A problem with this is that in order to make any sense at all, metaphors need to have a foundation in literal truth.
The same can be said of unknowability. It may be true that there are some aspects of God that are unknowable. But I don't think it makes sense to say that God is entirely unknowable. So the question becomes one of which aspects are knowable and how they are known.
That is an excellent point Eric.I said that very thing about that episode the first time I saw it.We do have touch stones in reality to work from. The problem is the atheist activist type like Skepie will never accept the validity of such claims regardless of how good the evidence.
I have 200 or so studied is from peer reviewed academic journals saying RE is good for you changes your life in a positive way,in the way religion claims to change your life. But the reaction from atheists has been total vilification of the studies, they are such horrible studies,not one if them read a single study, NOT ONE!!!!!
im-skeptical said...
But then your objection is really about religious fundamentalism.
- Fundamentalism? I'm not talking about a literalist biblical view of God. Joe expounds at great length on God's nature and his attributes. As do many other Christians who are not regarded as fundamentalists.
I am also the one with 200 studies backing up my point, you are the one who did not read them
Kristen said...
I didn't say I experienced something others don't. Most people seem to feel something that makes them think there's more to life than just the physical. Most people are not atheists. What makes your understanding"realistic" and mine not? Only that you're privileging your understanding according to your own mindset: that only physical experiences can be real.
well said
Fundamentalism? I'm not talking about a literalist biblical view of God. Joe expounds at great length on God's nature and his attributes. As do many other Christians who are not regarded as fundamentalists.
But with the caveat that God is beyond our understanding and that we can only approach God through metaphor. We can experience God but not have definitive knowledge.
The same can be said of unknowability. It may be true that there are some aspects of God that are unknowable. But I don't think it makes sense to say that God is entirely unknowable. So the question becomes one of which aspects are knowable and how they are known.
But what would 'literal truth' be like? Even sense perception has a lot of inference sort of built in.
I would say if there's any access that's available to people, it would be experiential. But then the question arises: Why is experience privileged over propositional or other kinds of knowledge? I would say that God is the most intellectually satisfying answer to our entire contact with reality on all levels, but I concede that this response has problems.
I meant 'fundamnetalism' in terms of literalism broadly speaking,not necessarily Biblical literalism. Such as we can know literally what God wants, what his actions are, etc.
The same can be said of unknowability. It may be true that there are some aspects of God that are unknowable. But I don't think it makes sense to say that God is entirely unknowable. So the question becomes one of which aspects are knowable and how they are known.
I never said God is entirely unknowable.I said we experience God directly
do we know too much or too little?
But what would 'literal truth' be like? Even sense perception has a lot of inference sort of built in.
I would say if there's any access that's available to people, it would be experiential. But then the question arises: Why is experience privileged over propositional or other kinds of knowledge? I would say that God is the most intellectually satisfying answer to our entire contact with reality on all levels, but I concede that this response has problems.
God reveals propositional knowledge. What we know of God is either revealed or experienced, but people often just ignore Revelation as a posiility
Maybe. I'm a little skeptical of clear-cut propositional knowledge from God, such as "God told me to do x y or z." Maybe it did happen in Biblical times, but even then, it wasn't always meant literally, like when God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
Ne also entered history as a man so we can both observe and learn his character from his behavior and also observe his actual teachings.
I agree. We're given what we need to do for salvation, moral edification and the like. Beyond that, it may be unknowable what "God became a man" actually means.
Correction: We're given what we need to know.
Post a Comment