| mikwut vs. the Empiricists; Advancing the Debate |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Martin ® 03/08/2002, 22:06:27 Author Profile Mail author |
The admittedly brilliant mikwut has been engaged for several months in a determined philosophical critique of the epistemological position known as empiricism, which is essentially the view that, in the final analysis, all human knowledge of the real world comes to us from our experiences as presented to us by our senses (i.e., via our nervous systems). [Please note! As I explained here, at times the mere statement of the definition of a philosophical position can mistakenly be seen as a dogmatic assertion of fact. THIS IS UNJUSTIFIED AND MUST BE GUARDED AGAINST! In the case of empiricism, for example, the position should be seen as the logical inverse of the opposing position known as philosophical Rationalism, which contends that knowledge can be acquired via some unspecified non-sensory means. If one position is called "dogmatic", the other becomes dogmatic automatically! Instead, these definitions should be seen as akin to a demarcation: Some people hold that we can obtain knowledge through some unspecified non-sensory, non-physical means (Rationalists), and some do not (empiricists). I hope this is clear.] Continuing with my thoughts, mikwut has taken on his critique primarily in an effort to defend his religious faith. His approach to that defense is somewhat peculiar, however. Rather than provide arguments to justify his beliefs in a positive, active manner, he has chosen instead to challenge the empiricists among us (in this instance primarily Craig C. and myself) because we do not concede that mikwut's rationale for his faith is sound and credible, largely on the grounds that his beliefs are rooted in philosophical Rationalism (even if we only rarely use such language in our threads). In other words, mikwut holds that he has some real knowledge of God or at least the existence of God (although incomplete and imperfect) that is NOT a result of sensory/neurological experience but was made known to him by some other unspecified (or at best poorly-specified) means. We empiricists hold that such alleged "knowledge" is illusory on two major grounds: 1) His purported "knowledge" did not come through any known sensory mechanism and thus cannot be justified as true, real-world "knowledge" by the standard philosophical definition of knowledge (which is briefly defined as justified, true belief), andSo (to repeat) instead of advancing active arguments in defense of his religious, Rationalistic beliefs in God, mikwut has instead chosen to attack empiricism, hoping against hope that by demolishing empiricism he will be able to dismiss the criticisms coming from the likes of Craig and myself, and also perhaps allow him to maintain his religious beliefs with more ease and self-confidence (an admittedly editorial comment, but it is my honest opinion). For another, more involved and more philosophical overview of mikwut's arguments, please see Cal's careful summary: What might mikwut mean by "dogmatism" Now that I have outlined the framework of the debate, I wish to make some additional remarks... - - - - - (1) The debate recently appears to have side-tracked into a discussion of whether empiricism is "dogmatic" (again, please see Cal's summary). But I hold that the issue isn't really about dogmatism, but rather it is much more accurately seen as a disagreement over how much weight and credence to give to personal, subjective "evidence". We empiricists continue to stress that without the ability to independently examine personal, subjective claims of knowledge, such claims cannot be granted much weight. This is primarily because of the powerful tendency for people to fool themselves if they alone are able to evaluate their own beliefs, combined with their innate drive to seek out only confirmatory "evidence" for their beliefs (see Kevin's interesting recent thread on that topic). One common term for that general problem is called in scientific jargon "the experimenter effect". Capsule summary of (1): The debate is hopefully moving away from the issues of dogmatism and of empiricism vs. Rationalism, and instead may be moving towards the slightly different question of what weight should be given to personal, subjective evidence.
I can't speak for Craig, but I have certainly had what anyone would call "religious" experiences but was sufficiently self-honest to recognize and acknowledge that they resulted from nothing beyond my own brain. Finally, (3) mikwut's criticism of empiricism has grown stale. Not because empiricism has "proved" itself or that Craig and I are "dogmatic" empiricists, but rather because his arguments are flawed and thus ineffective. More to the point, his inverted approach to the debate -- that is, his decision to attack empiricism as a means of defending his own religious faith -- is fundamentally pointless. He can't defend his view by merely criticizing OUR views!
- Martin |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
MRI: spiritual experience-brain (links for Kevin) Re: mikwut vs. the Empiricists; Advancing the Debate -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
03/08/2002, 23:39:45
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Martin: The reason Mikwut believes his religious experiences arive to his consciousness via an extra-sensorial channel is because he has never seen an MRI of his frontal lobes while he is having a religious experience compared to when he is not having one.
If he did, he would notice the differences determined by the hightened neurological activity in those areas, believed to be the neural correlates for experiencing the spiritual.
Here are some links to interesting studies on the topic:
(also in answer to Kevin)Persinger: spiritual phenomenon
Persinger: angelic visitations, UFO abductions, etc.TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: MRI: spiritual experience-brain Re: MRI: spiritual experience-brain (links for Kevin) -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
03/09/2002, 00:09:51
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Vines, I very much agree with your analysis. However, I think there are other roadblocks to mikwut's clear thinking! See, for example, my post: Of Objectivity below.
Thank you also for the links, which are of great interest to me and I believe will be to many of our fellow posters and lurkers. I myself have long known of Persinger's theories and research, and consider his work to be extremely important and valuable (even though I am still somewhat skeptical of one of his older hypotheses about geomagnetism / geoelectricity generating even a small subset of UFO-related claims).
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
The height of arrogance Vines! Re: MRI: spiritual experience-brain (links for Kevin) -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: mikwut ®
03/11/2002, 01:35:34
Author Profile Mail author
As if seeing an MRI while having the experience of eating a bologna sandwich would somehow give me neurological evidence that I was not actually eating a bologna sandwich. Would you be so kind as to explain to me how your own conclusion concerning the neurological activity in the brain self-evidently brings us to your conclusions and not others? How are your own conclusions and thinking not susceptible to the same subjective and pychological analysis you make of mine?
mikwut
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
No offense intended-Let's look real close Mikwut!! Re: The height of arrogance Vines! -- mikwut Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
03/11/2002, 23:39:42
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Mikwut: After having spent 2 hours responding and having lost everything I was writing, let me try briefly again... yeah right...
First of all, if you have found my post offensive I am sorry, it was not meant to offend. My train of thought was a continuation from our previous conversation.
To give perspective to my comments I will quote you :
Roughly speaking the objective nature of our reasoning processes and ability to empirically investigate phenomena is an objective experience because it is universally accepted....It also becomes evident that the vast majority of mankind has had the basic intuition experience, you can give it kevin's name of instinct, my labels of primary, basic or fundamental or you can call it whatever scientific articulation is currently in vogue, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE EXPERIENCE ITSELF is objective. Ones particular experience could be labeled as subjective but the same is true for any cognitive function including our reasoning abilities. THAT WE EXPERIENCE REASONING ABILITIES is objective, my personal experience of interpreting this is subjective. My personal interpretation of what my cognitive revelatory information gives me is subjective but so is any interpretation of data of whatever sort.My first reaction is to say “so what.” It is obvious that the actual ability to experience is an objective reality. (I must point out that some scientists in this very field of expertise have concluded that human consciousness is an illusion and not an objective reality. I find this to be very hard to justify.)
However, I must say that your association of the words OBJECTIVE and EXPERIENCE is quite misleading in this context. The fact that you are talking about the neurological process determining the cognitive phenomena of experience is not always clear considering the context of your post where acceptance of extrasensory channels as means of discerning objective truth is clearly conveyed. One doesn’t normally talk of experience in the sense of its neural correlate, but rather as in its content. Especially because one never is conscious of the neural state (you are calling this state "objective experience") but only of the subjective content of the experience. So to say objective experience sounds odd, but you clarified sufficiently.
That we have instincts, or cognitive modules, seems to be an objective reality considering the observations of inborn human behavior. Evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker would agree with your definition of man’s intuitive abilities as instinct.
So far, I would interpret your statements as your having made the case that the human brain’s multi-layered computational structures yield the cumulative result of experience, and that this phenomena is objectively real.
The main topic, however, was not whether or not the cognitive phenomenon known as “experience” was an objective reality, but rather whether or not spiritual experiences were caused by an objective reality that goes beyond the cognitive modules and neurological functions up to now defined as objective realities. No one is questioning that our brain is objectively functioning, what is being questioned is whether your attributing the causation of spiritual experiences to God is objective, and whether or not faith can be considered rational.
It is obvious that spiritual experiences are objectively happening, that was the whole basis of my links, and comments on MRIs. But to go from saying that these experiences are determined by an objective reality beyond their neural correlate is entirely a statement of faith that cannot be demonstrated in any way, shape, or form.
You state:
I have had a cognitive experience that assures me THAT god exists through both basic intuition and revelation... After much experience with this it becomes evident to me that I am having an objective experience. I can also deepen this experience through scripture study, sincere prayer and relational and covenant living with the object of my belief.
Again, so what. You are objectively having an experience, and what exactly is the objective reality behind the experience? That is the point Mikwut!
You clearly stated:
In a discussion with an atheistic worldview yes I do widen the range of objectivity to the non empirical realm. I don't have any angst of conscience in so doing. I don't believe I (nor the thought structure I am advocating) am the one who narrowed it in the first place. There are several definitions of objective and it seems this board is following a definition that only empirical facts are objective...Spiritual phenomenon don't yield the same results by definition (as science), that doesn't mean spiritual results don't yield ANY objective correlates ...And no one said they didn’t, in fact they must have an objective correlate or they would not be real. The issue is your identification of this objective reality with theological propositions and assertions.
And it doesn't mean we eliminate the SOMETHING that is objectively intuited (meaning God) by all of us because it doesn't give us EVERYTHING of a propositional nature. Scientific findings are "more" objective than theological propositions.
This is where you are dead wrong. Theological propositions are in no measure objective. The simple fact that humans possess the evolved cognitive faculty of intuition in no way can justify validation of religious propositions. These are entirely matters of faith, and if anything, God has specifically organized things so as to exclude any form of objective verification of his presence. There is no means of verification of the objective reality of God, and the simple fact that man’s intuitions are objectively real neurological functions doesn’t extend the qualification of “reality” to all the subjective inferences of our intuitions. You consistently attempt to validate this argument, and it is entirely a vain attempt.
Now as to my statements above:
The reason Mikwut believes his religious experiences arrive to his consciousness via an extra-sensorial channel is because he has never seen an MRI of his frontal lobes while he is having a religious experience compared to when he is not having one.
If he did, he would notice the differences determined by the heightened neurological activity in those areas, believed to be the neural correlates for experiencing the spiritual.I realize, and apologize that the wording is condescending and arrogant. I didn’t intend it to be. What I should have said was:
_______________Mikwut should analyze a bit more carefully the objective realities observed in laboratory settings through MRI machines, which yield scientific results and measurements, in observing the neural activity of human brains when these are experiencing what the subjects involved identify as spiritual. He would notice the heightened neural activity in those areas, believed to be the neural correlates of spiritual experience. This data relating to observable, objectively real cerebral structures, abnormally active during spiritual phenomenological manifestations, should cause him to pause and reflect, because the theories that place causation of these experiences at the cerebral level represent an objective alternative to his religious propositions.
Mikwut’s assertion that spiritual experiences are caused by an objective reality that has a correlation of any degree to his theological propositions is in my opinion a convoluted defense of his ideology. When he qualifies to any extent his theological assertions as “objective” rather than subjective culturally transmitted statements of belief, he belittles true objectivity.
What Mikwut doesn’t admit to is that EVEN THOUGH THE COGNITIVE EXPERIENCE OF MYSTICISM IS DETERMINED BY AN OBJECTIVELY REAL NEURAL STATE, THIS DOES NOT CONFER THE QUALIFICATION OF OBJECTIVE TO THE SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE EXPERIENCE, NOR MUST THERE BE NECESSARILY ANY CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN THE OBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE(NEURAL STATE, WHICH IS NEVER ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED CONSCIOUSLY)AND ITS SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION (CONTENT - WHICH CONSISTS OF THE ACTUAL EXPERIENCE).
_______________Science cannot explain everything. We all know this. That there are objective realities behind all of our experiences (events) is a cardinal rule of determinism, but in order to call a proposition describing a phenomena “objective,” you must first find an objective causal link between the experience and the supposed source, that is: it must be more than just a statement of belief. It must be verifiable to some extent. Otherwise it is purely a statement of belief.
Would you mind answering some simple questions:
Why should an individual consider there to be any causal link between cognitive phenomenon known as spiritual experiences, and an absolutely non verifiable set of culturally transmitted propositions, as theology is, especially in view of our modern understanding of the functioning of the brain?
How were the theological proposition actually formulated in the first place?
If we were to consider “revelation” as a source for their formulation, where is the link to objectivity?
How can it be determined that the actual objective cause behind the revelation then, and now, was not entirely within the brain of the one having the experience?
How do we know that those learning the set of propositions are not then also conditioned to subjectively interpret the natural experience by identifying it with the actual learned propositions? (See the relevance of religious culture in the subjective “Near Death Experiences.”)
Why shouldn’t we consider mystical experiences just another set of genetically transmitted adaptations? Why would mystical experiences have a privileged position compared to other cognitive faculties like language, consciousness, the concept of will, sight, discernment, etc... ? If in fact they are an adaptation, then why look for an objective cause outside the brain?
________________
As I have said before, sooner or later, anyone that chooses to believe will discover that faith is, in fact, a choice. We choose to believe in God, at least from our non-deterministic view of “will,” in that believing is not the only, but one of many possible options. Many alternate options seem theoretically to have strong causal links to realities that are observable, and measurable. As we discover more about the brain, much will probably be clarified.Because God is an after the fact proposition explaining cognitive adaptations termed spiritual, the choice to believe remains irrational because it is not motivated by anything that has a causal link to any observable objective reality.
TV
Modified by The Vines at Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 23:53:01
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Thank you, no offense taken... Re: No offense intended-Let's look real close Mikwut!! -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: mikwut ®
03/12/2002, 01:03:43
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you for the kind apology, I wasn't offended per se but just making a point that I believe the very thing you are stating to me, of which I am suppose to be convinced after deeply considering, breaks the very rules for which you condemn my broadening of objective reality. I really think you are underestimating how seriously I take this whole matter. Let me briefly state that we are playing with definitions here, or I am if you prefer. I have two main contentions.
First, my main contention is that I don't believe you or Martin or others consistently use the word "objective" in the extremely narrow and scientific sense that you are explaining to me. If we all consistently used the word in that sense we would have very, very little knowledge at all. I believe many times the term is used pejoritively to dismiss religious belief whether justified or not. Justified need not imply absolutely certain, nor should objective. For example in the law we use the term completely different from how you and Martin are using the term, in fact an enormous amount of reasons for coming to conclusions in the law would be subjective drivel according to what is being articulated so often on the board. I am defending my position from such a naive use of the word.
Second, broadening the terms usage in religious matters is completely rational given the sphere of knowledge comes from a different sense or instinct. Just as in applying laws we would call two witnesses to a particular event objective, and one persons view subjective, twenty people even more objective. We even place burdens on certain torts for example by using this criteria. I feel comfortable calling torturing babies objective, but nuances of morality become less clear and hence subjective interpretations that may or may not be justified. I am not just attempting to win the language game by broadening the terms usage. I am attempting to properly place the terms usage within the proper sphere of knowledge that it belongs. I don't think I would be correct to use black's law dictionary to move the word into theistic proper usage.
Let me attempt answering your questions:
"Why should an individual consider there to be any causal link between cognitive phenomenon known as spiritual experiences, and an absolutely non verifiable set of culturally transmitted propositions, as theology is, especially in view of our modern understanding of the functioning of the brain?"
I am not sure if you are familiar with all of my arguments vines. I am not soooo naive as to argue that theology is totally an objective endeavor, or morality is totally objective, or that even revelation is totally objective and yes science is not totally objective just the reigning champion right now. My own arguments would defeat that possibility. I am arguing that a cognitive function relays to us the information that GOD exists. I agree 100% with you that it is a choice on whether we trust that cognitive information. The perception of that data is analogous to perception of not our reasonable deductions but of our perception of our reasoning ability, that I can reason. THAT'S ALL!! Just like when science get's certain data, the MRI scans for example, THAT IS OBJECTIVE, but we then pychologically infer conclusions from the data that can no longer be called objective even under your criteria of the word, hence the bologna sandwich. We deduce the objective nature of those conclusions by "broadening" the terms usage, we apply the conclusions to the scientific market place of others to find similiar conclusions. We test our conclusions against others who have objectively seen the evidence. This is no different then what I am arguing for, I have the initial data that God exists, when I draw theological deductions from it I take it to others who have experienced the same. But I digress a bit, why should I consider the original cognitive data to be "that God exists", if that is what you are asking, because that is the self-evident nature of the communication just as "I can reason" can not survive skeptical dimissals or questions of why should I think I can really reason, without allowing for it to simply be what it self-evidently is. So without being rhetorical vines I could just throw the question back at you under your constructions except interpose memory, or our reasoning faculties. I don't mean that in a silly manner either. I am just making an analogy.
"How were the theological proposition actually formulated in the first place?"
Let's stick with the basic and fundamental data as above, and I think I articulated how it functions in a simplistic manner. We will have to extrapolate further about actual propositional statements outside of - that God exists - for now, such as what is he/she/it?
"If we were to consider “revelation” as a source for their formulation, where is the link to objectivity"
If you consider it basic, it is it's own objective criteria such as your reasoning processes or your ability to sense the physical world. It then moves in a spectrum that gets gray. This movement is similar to how torturing babies can be perceived or apprehended by us as objective but more complex nuances of ethics move on a spectrum of gray. I will add a possibility here for now, the sense "my sins are forgiven" might be considered a cognitive basic experience.
"How can it be determined that the actual objective cause behind the revelation then, and now, was not entirely within the brain of the one having the experience?"
I think I have answered this as well, through pragmatic usages such as science uses as well as "repeating" the process of experiment if you will. Just as science moves from given datum this basic and fundamental and primary cognitive "experience" provides a given datum for a theist to begin the framing of a theistic worldview.
"Why shouldn’t we consider mystical experiences just another set of genetically transmitted adaptations? Why would mystical experiences have a privileged position compared to other cognitive faculties like language, consciousness, the concept of will, sight, discernment, etc... ? If in fact they are an adaptation, then why look for an objective cause outside the brain?"
I think you are confusing that I am attempting to call all experiences of joy, peace, union, and "fiber of my being" type experiences. I am not arguing about mystical experiences, quite frankly due to the length of the discussions and debate concerning the primary and basic quality of "that god exists" I haven't moved yet to the answer to prayer, or discerning between other competing "mystical experiences" very much at all. I gave a general response to the problem of pluralism to Jak, Craig and CAl which is now in the archive.
"We choose to believe in God, at least from our non-deterministic view of “will,” in that believing is not the only, but one of many possible options."
Here I offer nothing but sincere agreement. But I am defending my cognitive perception from skeptical arguments that I am deluding myself and my belief is no different from santa claus and unicorns, hence my approach which might be different if I was offering my views to a believing audience. Lastly, I am very pleased that your deterministic view is now understood from this statement which I wholeheartedly agree. I simply believe you are making a statement about ALL OUR REALITY and not just the narrow part of it that includes belief in GOD.
Let me leave you with a question vines, you still believe that god exists, you excercise that choice - what then is the correlate to your trust? Whenever I use that term it refers to SOMETHING, but what is your something. We might be conflating the differences between a believing faith, and profoundly hopeful faith. I am defending a believing faith which carries with it an actual cognitive something to in fact trust.
I have to leave town for two days again, I will try to get to a computer but I look forward to your reply.
mikwut
Modified by mikwut at Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 01:12:00
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Its hard to believe quite frankly... Re: Thank you, no offense taken... -- mikwut Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
03/12/2002, 18:56:20
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Mikwut: I really don't know what to tell you. I just don't!
Let me quote you and try to comment:
1) First, my main contention is that I don't believe you or Martin or others consistently use the word "objective" in the extremely narrow and scientific sense that you are explaining to me. If we all consistently used the word in that sense we would have very, very little knowledge at all.
Why do you say this? It sounds like an empty statement to me. Can you demonstrate what you mean?
It seems also that you are considering objective data only as knowledge. I think much of our knowledge is subjective. The important thing is that it works within the bounds of our social structure. For example, when we build a home we follow a blueprint. The workers will not be able to create a home that reflects perfectly the geometry and design of the blueprint, but on a macroscopic level, micro-error is perfectly acceptable.
Take Newtonian physics... it works just find as far as the majority of macroscopic everyday observations go, but it will not work, say for our space program... Relativity must be utilized to provide greater accuracy.
The point here however is that all these theoretical systems have strong relations to objective realities that can be measured independently. Specific mathematical predictions correspond to empirical observation.
Though we all understand that technological and theoretical limits stifle the absolute accuracy of the observation process, but we wouldn't say that this process is subjective because both mathematical and technological tools, independent of our experiential subjectivity, are utilized and yield consistent, measurable, and verifiable results.
So as you can see we have much knowledge that fits our needs even if it isn't a perfect mirror of objective reality, but it fits our needs, it is completely subject to investigation. The link between cause and effect is studied, documented, measured, etc., and theoretical assertions and propositions are not validated by unverifiable subjective cognitive experience like in theology, but rather by measurements made with technological tools and mathematical theory that yield extremely accurate results. These describe objective reality to an incredible degree of accuracy.
2) Second, broadening the terms usage in religious matters is completely rational given the sphere of knowledge comes from a different sense or instinct....I am not just attempting to win the language game by broadening the terms usage. I am attempting to properly place the terms usage within the proper sphere of knowledge that it belongs.
Can you identify what the objective reality is behind this instinct? All theory points to our cerebral structure. There are specific experiments done in the lab not only analyzing patterns of neural firing during the manifestation of this so called "sense, instinct, basic...," but actually recreating these experiences through electromagnetic stimulation of specific cortical areas.
You try to widen the definition of "objectivity" by creating a box for knowledge obtained through spiritual channels. Yet you cannot identify any causal link between spiritual experience and the objective reality causing it. All you have is a set of culturally transmitted propositions identifying a god that has NO VERIFIABLE PRESENCE.
3) My own arguments would defeat that possibility. I am arguing that a cognitive function relays to us the information that GOD exists. I agree 100% with you that it is a choice on whether we trust that cognitive information. The perception of that data is analogous to perception of not our reasonable deductions but of our perception of our reasoning ability, that I can reason. THAT'S ALL!! Just like when science get's certain data, the MRI scans for example, THAT IS OBJECTIVE, but we then pychologically infer conclusions from the data that can no longer be called objective even under your criteria of the word, hence the bologna sandwich. We deduce the objective nature of those conclusions by "broadening" the terms usage, we apply the conclusions to the scientific market place of others to find similiar conclusions. We test our conclusions against others who have objectively seen the evidence.
This statement is incredibly misleading. Its really bad! Sorry. Your's is a big bologna sandwich! The data we get from technological tools is intepreted yes, but it has specific links to observed, measured, and verified realities. The analytical observations are linked to an observed reality not to a proposition that has never been observed. How can you make these statements? I really can't understand your line of thought.
4) If you consider it basic, it is it's own objective criteria such as your reasoning processes or your ability to sense the physical world.
My senses are subject to analysis, measurement, etc.. and the results they yield in terms of analysis can find a causal link to an observable reality. When I experience seeing a car, I can also make certain measurements to see if my subjective experience can be verified. My senses are objective realities. The senses you claim yield spiritual knowledge have never been identified, nor has the process of cause and effect been analyzed. It has only been spoken of through culturally transmitted propositions and assertions(theology). It is only a belief. Similar spiritual experiences among people do not confirm the objective reality causing them. You are saying that a cognitive experience is actually able to explain the objective reality causing it. But you can't demonstrate this in any degree.
A comparison of this position to that of one supporting, lets say.. magic, is completely logical. Both are simply culturally transmitted beliefs with no verifiable reality behind them, just assertions.
Your question: Let me leave you with a question vines, you still believe that god exists, you excercise that choice - what then is the correlate to your trust? Whenever I use that term it refers to SOMETHING, but what is your something.
My trust is born out of the genetic predispositions of my cognitive identity, and to the conditioning received in my life. These produce a gut feeling that if trusted yeilds irrational results: belief in God though no evidence has ever been presented of his existence, only assertions.
I know my belief if irrational. I accept it as such. I have no problem with that. It might in fact correspond to an objective truth of some kind. But this probability in NO MEASURE WHATSOEVER WOULD EVER JUSTIFY THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE BELIEF AS OBJECTIVE.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Its hard to believe quite frankly... Re: Its hard to believe quite frankly... -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: mikwut ®
03/14/2002, 13:16:31
Author Profile Mail author
Vines, We really might be talking past each other a great deal. I am running out of communicative ability to explain to you what I am advocating. My entire arguments hinge on belief in god being basic just like memory, sense experience, or our reasoning processes are basic. The rest is jumbled because I do accept that; you don't. If one does accept that belief in god is basic my definitions logically follow, if one doesn't then obviously yours follow.
I am not as scientifically oriented as you in matters of brain activity and offered you only general responses such as the data is description of phenomena but not total explanation. I still am wondering how you answer how your "explanation" is not ultimately phychological and subjective? I am also wondering what relevance the brain scans have for a "basic" belief. For instance, how would a brain scan on someone who is "sensing the material world presently", or who is accepting one's basic reasoning processes or memory be seen? That is what I meant by the bologna sandwich.
mikwut
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Thank You Re: Re: Its hard to believe quite frankly... -- mikwut Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
03/17/2002, 16:00:21
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Mikwut:
I apologize for my delay. My work often brings me away from home and I have not been able to purchase a laptop yet....
<I>We really might be talking past each other a great deal. I am running out of communicative ability to explain to you what I am advocating. My entire arguments hinge on belief in god being basic just like memory, sense experience, or our reasoning processes are basic. The rest is jumbled because I do accept that; you don't. If one does accept that belief in god is basic my definitions logically follow, if one doesn't then obviously yours follow.</I>
I think you are right in saying that we may just be talking past each other... That happens. I also feel like I don't know how else to say what I have been saying, so I may just end up repeating myself again here...
You say your argument hinges upon your idea that belief in God is basic like any other cognitive function. Originally I interpreted this to mean that
1) you were of the idea that belief in God, or even the sensing of his presence was an innate gift in man <B>given by a spiritual power, or by a spiritual component to man's nature... something supernatural</B>.
2) Then I thought instead that when you said that belief was basic that you were referring to a basic cognitive ability that is in man's brain, which would be there independent of whether or not there is a God; so in essence you were calling it basic, like you would a cognitive instinct of any kind (E.G. language, fear of heights, disgust for certain smells, etc...)
Now again I am confused as to what exactly you mean by <B><I>basic</B></I>.
The point of the matter is that in any case, whether or not your conclusions are logical per se soesn't mean that they are based on reality. You can say that if you set as a parameter that God exists then your logic follows, and that is true, but that does not make your belief in God rational, nor demonstrable, which was the issue.
As a reminder the issue was that spiritual experiences are not a validation of the presence of God.
Belief remains a matter of pure faith, and hence in the total absence of any kind of empirical data linking spiritual experience to a physical entity or reality that can be observed and measured beyond the brain, then attributing these experiences to God can only be irrational.
When you say: <I>If one does accept that belief in god is basic my definitions logically follow, if one doesn't then obviously yours follow</I> I feel you misrepresent my ideas.
I accept belief is a basic instinct coupled with a cultural (learned) twist to it. The ability to experience the spiritual is no doubt a basic cognitive function of our complex brains, but this in no way either proves or negates the presence of God. So I feel that my ideas follow either way.
More later.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Good post, Vines! (but a VERY minor nit) Re: No offense intended-Let's look real close Mikwut!! -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
03/12/2002, 03:04:49
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Vines, It is so very refreshing to read your cogent, articulate arguments after reading a dose of mikwuttery!
I only wish to point out a very tiny and clearly unintended misstatement, in which you wrote: "It is obvious that spiritual experiences are objectively happening..."
Fortunately, you went on to clarify that you don't accept that any "spritual experiences" are objective, and that one can only subjectively interpret certain "experiences" as being "spiritual" as a matter of personal opinion after the fact and in accordance with the experiencer's pre-existing belief system.
Again, I wish to express my great admiration for your remarkable self-honesty! Would that mikwut and Zoe would learn from your noble example...
With deep respect,- Martin
Modified by Martin at Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 03:05:31
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
No such thing as "Objective Experience" Re: Good post, Vines! (but a VERY minor nit) -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
03/12/2002, 19:44:37
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Martin: Your objection has great merit. I must confess that when I read Mikwut's post and found the label Objective Experience my first reaction was what Sagan would call "alarm going off on Baloney Detector."
It is quite obvious that there is no such thing as an objective experience for all cognitive experience of reality is a complex series of neural computations. (and some would argue that experience is simply an illusion)
Furthermore, when we talk about spiritual experiences we are talking about altered states of consciousness that receive input from the various neural correlates of our sensory faculties. The result at times is a spiritual experience that can mimic a sense of consciousness and awareness. But there is no doubt that the experience has a neural correlate.
When I said: "It is obvious that spiritual experiences are objectively happening..." I refered to Mikwut's statement regarding the fact that "spiritual experiences" were objectively happening on the neural level.
As I mentioned to him, saying "objective experience" is misleading because though the actual experience corresponds to neural activity, this is not perceived. So to call this neural activity "experience" is really not correct. What is perceived is the cumulative result of this activity as the content of our neural activity. This is what we call experience.
So your objection to the label "Objectively Happening Spiritual Experience" is correct because we don't experience the objective, or computational side of our neural experience, just the result which is subjective.
Thanks for making this further clear.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Thanks, Vines! Re: MRI: spiritual experience-brain (links for Kevin) -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Kevin ®
03/11/2002, 19:30:56
Author Profile Mail author
Vines, Thank you for the links!
You've probably already read Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World", but I thought the parallels he brought out between today's alien abductions, and yester-year's devil/witch experiences to be very interesting. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find the same region of the brain to account for much of this.
Even though I'm just starting to collect material on the physical/psychological origins of metaphysical experiences, I have found the little I have so far to be fascinating!
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Since y'all seem to feel free to speak for Mikwut, Re: mikwut vs. the Empiricists; Advancing the Debate -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
03/09/2002, 03:43:47
Author Profile Mail author
I have no compunction about jumping in here: I haven't read all, or even most of Mikwut's posts, but those I've read I certainly haven't interpreted as Martin has here. In fact, I don't see Mikwut as attacking "empiricism," as a method, at all, and recall reading his clear statement to that effect in one of his recent posts. I don't know whether or not Mikwut accepts empiricism as a doctrine, and certainly doubt he would accept Martin's particular definition of empiricism as a doctrine, but he may. Neither do I know for certain that Mikwut's views are based on "philosophical Rationalism," or if Martin has simply assumed this, but I'll leave that question for Mikwut to answer.
However, to suggest as Martin does in his comments, that Mikwut is in any danger of mistaking "the mere statement of a position" as dogmatism, is not only disingenuous, as Mikwut's comments about Martin's dogmatism, clearly do not refer to "mere statements" on Martin's part, but also condescending. I have no doubt that Mikwut has not made any such mistake. If, as Martin says "If one position is called "dogmatic", the other becomes dogmatic automatically!" then perhaps Martin should go out of his way to eliminate the word "dogmatic," together with any others that can be interpreted similarly from his vocabulary. I'm quite certain this would go along way towards eliminating the problem Mikwut, and I, and others have complained of, which is the only real "issue," that's been raised.
Likewise, characterizing the discussion as having become side -tracked into whether "empiricism" is dogmatic, is a misstatement, since Martin is simply making an issue out of a complaint. However, for the sake the discussion, if one were to interpret Mikwut as side-tracking this way, it should be pointed out that, at best, the disagreement must have to do with Martin's extrapolations from and applications of empiricism, rather than empiricism itself; and Martin's applications are not, to the best of my understanding, strictly empiricism, but go far beyond it.
For example, Martin says "We empiricists hold that such alleged "knowledge" [referring to Mikwut's alleged claimed sensory knowledge of God] is illusory on two major grounds: His purported "knowledge" did not come through any known sensory mechanism and thus cannot be justified as true, real-world "knowledge" by the standard philosophical definition of knowledge."
Perhaps Mikwut will disagree with me, but I think there are several problems with this statement:
1)Martin's application of the limitation of "known sensory mechanism," regarding knowledge is extremely narrow, and subject to expansion, as the Vines points out, as our knowledge of human physiology, particularly that of the human nervous system and brain increases, and it has increased exponentially, in recent years;2)there is no such thing as a "standard philosophical definition of knowledge;" Martin's definition of knowledge as "justified true belief" can more accurately be described as a slightly flawed definition of a scientific definition of knowledge; it is slightly flawed because it fails to fully take into account the fact that while we can know that some "knowledge" is false, from specific information proving that specific "knowledge," is false, we can't, at present, ever know for sure, whether any specific item of "knowledge" is true;
3)Furthermore, the question of what knowledge is, has been and remains a major topic of modern philosophy, and is still, very much up for grabs.
Moreover, modern thought, including and especially, but not limited to, the philosophy of science has long since recognized that there is no such thing as the truly "independent verification," Martin claims as a second crucial test of knowledge. Indeed, I think real scientists are very cognizant that the independence of any verification is relative, at best. Furthermore, modern thought, including science recognize, as Martin seems to have forgotten here, that there is also no such thing as non-subjective experience; in other words, all experience is "subjective," rendering the assertion of Martin that "personal, subjective experience" should not be accepted as reliable evidence, ultimately meaningless.
In other words, Martin's tests for "knowledge" go far beyond anything that is viably left of empiricism.
Finally, I cannot, of course agree with Martin, for the many reasons listed above, that Mikwut's issue is really a matter of the "weight" to be accorded to personal, subjective experience. However, since Martin brings it up, and again for the sake of discussion, that we have a tendency to fool ourselves and seek out confirmatory evidence of whatever we've fooled ourselves into believing, is true for all of us. Martin's "empiricism" cannot really inoculate him in this regard, much as he seems to hope and believe that it does. In addition, IMO (and opinions are all that any of us really have after all) there are no truly convincing reasons (which is the best that we can really hope at present to have) empirical or otherwise, to believe that it is anymore unlikely that God exists than it is likely.
As I see it the "issue" or rather the point much as Mikwut has framed it in his posts that I have read can be summed up as follows: atheists and theists alike, have a tendency to dogmatism, and some of the former have been exhibiting as much dogmatism as some of the latter here of late. This is a really a fairly innocuous and reasonable statement, and certainly nothing to become exercised over.
Preemptive statements:
I am NOT a philosophical rationalist as Martin defines the term; please do not make such assumptions about me.
I have NO problem with empiricism as a method; it's the best tool we've yet developed to grope our to the truth; however, the method is, at best, just that: groping.
I draw a clear distinction between the concepts of belief and knowledge. Since I define faith as a type of belief, and not knowledge, in any way shape or form, the fact that I profess Christianity DOES NOT conflict with my views regarding the usefulness of empiricism as a method, and my acceptance of the findings of good empiricism.
Zoe
Modified by Zoe at Sat, Mar 09, 2002, 03:55:14
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
What an anti-factual pseudo-intellectual farce! Re: Since y'all seem to feel free to speak for Mikwut, -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
03/09/2002, 04:35:31
Author Profile Mail author
Zoe, Your post is so incredibly counter-factual and deliriously mistaken on even simple matters that it isn't worth the bother of a detailed reply. At least you admit that you haven't read enough of the actual debate! If you had done so (and you were an honest thinker instead of the ignoble, misguided charlatan you actually are), you would have realized that almost every "argument" you make is factually incorrect and philosophically laughable!
I will just take the trouble to refute the first of your false claims and then let every honest reader to determine for themselves that the rest of your post is nothing but unjustified assertions, misapprehensions and fabrications...
You write: "In fact, I don't see Mikwut as attacking 'empiricism,' as a method, at all, and recall reading his clear statement to that effect in one of his recent posts."
Good Bob, woman! Mikwut dedicates scores and scores of posts attacking the meaning of empiricism and the roots of empiricism and the validity of empiricism and the limits of empiricism and the interpretation of empiricism and the application of empiricism and the philosophical underpinnings of empiricism and yes, even the actually non-existent "methods" of empiricism, but you can't see that he's attacking empiricism? You are clearly blind to any and all subtlety! How shallow can your pathetic thinking be if you swallow whole a merely self-serving and disingenuous disclaimer to the effect that he is not attacking empiricism or its alleged "method" issued by the person attacking empiricism and its alleged "method"?
SHEESH!
Empiricism, my dear deluded Zoe, DOES NOT HAVE A METHOD!! To even suggest it does is a sign of either very poor verbal skills or deep philosophical ignorance! Empiricism is a epistemological position, and positions do not have methods! Science has methods, NOT EMPIRICISM! Thus, regardless of mikwut's highly disingenuous disclaimer to the contrary, HE HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN AN ATTACK ON EMPIRICISM FOR MONTHS!
Furthermore, you will see that mikwut is INDEED an epistemological Rationalist! He has clearly stated several times that his belief in God is based on extra-empirical "knowledge". There is NO LOGICAL WAY to interpret his assertions as anything else BUT rationalism! Why the hell don't you read his posts before making such a damn fool of yourself?
Your deep ignorance of philosophy is abysmally obvious to everyone who has a real grasp of philosophy, Zoe. Please stop pretending to knowledge and understanding which has so clearly eluded you.
I would go on, but it becomes increasingly strained to go on debating mikwut's views without mikwut's participation.
But more importantly, it is clear that you have no interest in the real issues of our debate with mikwut and will merely continue to fabricate your own reckless and arbitrary assertions contrary to fact.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Sat, Mar 09, 2002, 04:36:43
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Thank you both for so graciously providing... Re: What an anti-factual pseudo-intellectual farce! -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
03/09/2002, 17:44:44
Author Profile Mail author
such clear and timely examples of the dogmatic behavior Mikwut, I and others have so validly complained of, which Martin has attempted in his opening thread, clearly unsuccessfully, to deflect. I don't think I have been making arguments to any great extent Martin. I have been too busy pointing out the flaws in yours. Howerever, since you insist, here is a sample of statements by Mikwut during the past week, that support my claim that your interpretation of Mikwut as somehow anti-empiricist, is simply incorrect:
"My arguments for my belief are all framed in CONCRETE EXPERIENCE OF BEING HUMAN IN THE PRESENT REALITY - abstract arguments against it are not relevant except for clarification not justification. I present the abstract in showing the inconsistencies of nonbelief. My arguments hinge one whether the existence of GOD is basic, fundamental, and primary the same as you accept your reasoning processes (as do I) as basic, fundamental, and primary - no burden of proof is necessary when basic beliefs are being discussed because it is experience that allows us to be justified that they are in fact reliable."
"Many parts of reality such as the science you are so impressed with, as am I, are MORE objective than other cognitive areas but nothing is purely objective as we are always IN reality and therefore subjectively interposing onto reality."
"Also, science provides us with data but not philosophical conclusions concerning the data it gives us; descriptions of things but not necessary explanations - WE DO THAT PART ON OUR OWN."
"I believe in God Craig. I use the dichotomy to illustrate how those that skeptically criticise my belief for subjectivity allow for the same with their disbelief but dogmatically assert that they are not doing exactly what I am being criticised for."
Please note that Mikwut affirms his respect for concrete experience and science throughout. In addition, nowhere does Mikwut attack empricism itself as "dogmatic." Mikwut has only attacked it's application by some here as dogmatic.
In fact, it is your attempt to set up a false issue based upon a false interpretation of Mikwut's claims that is "anti-factual." However, if, in the future, you feel that my posts are not "worth the bother of a detailed reply," please consider yourself, respectfully invited not to reply. I assure you that my feelings will not be hurt in the least.
"Empiricism," my ignorant Martin, has several definitions, one of which is clearly recognized to refer to a method. In fact, the term "empirical method" can be appropriately used as a synonym for the term "scientific method," although there are other less commonly known usages. Please go look it up! The fact that I took care to distinguish betweeen empiricism as a method and empiricism as a doctrine, seems, simply to have been lost on your oh so subtle mind. I'm well aware that empricism is an epistemological position - one that, as I also made clear, has been severely diminished in usefulness during at least the last century of philosophical thought, as the nature of the "experience" upon which it claims to rely has been shown to be less and less "objective," as well as less and less subject to your fantasy of "independent verification." Hello! What's your problem? Clearly you can read; therefore, I can only assume that you've chosen not to.
As for Vines, why Vines should think that my failure to provide an alternate definiton for "empiricim," as if correct definitions cannot be found in any dictionary, amounts to a "hit and run" tactic, completely eludes me.
Ewe two clearly deserve each other. Enjoy ewerselves!
Zoe
Modified by Zoe at Sat, Mar 09, 2002, 17:48:10
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Hit and Run... Dodge the Bullet... Re: Since y'all seem to feel free to speak for Mikwut, -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
03/09/2002, 10:53:37
Author Profile Mail author
Zoe: The main point was and remains the definition of objective reality.
You can say that humans experience reality from their subjective viewpoint, but that does not say much about reality itself. As Martin correctly pointed out, objective reality remains such even in absence of a sentient observer.
Your comment in regards:
Moreover, modern thought, including and especially, but not limited to, the philosophy of science has long since recognized that there is no such thing as the truly "independent verification," Martin claims as a second crucial test of knowledge. Indeed, I think real scientists are very cognizant that the independence of any verification is relative, at best.Your statements, according to what you say originating with real scientists and philosophers of science, seem to me to be more your reading of concepts to fit your metaphysical worldview, and thus hopelessly applied out of context.
Real scientists while recognizing the relative accuracy of measurement, and the less-than absolute possibility to know everything about the Universe due to the indetermination principle applicable to observers, yet are far from the conclusions you draw on empiricism.
You sound like you are almost trying to apply a sort of "Copenhagen Definition" of reality... What exactly do you mean by "truly independent verification?" And what does that have to do with Martin's statement that objective reality remains such even in the absencce of an observer?
BTW, using you usual tactic, you discredit Martin's definitions by calling them Martin's particular definition of empiricism, but you carefully give no alternate definition. Typical hit and run. You right a long post to discredit empiricism, you try to do this painlessly by calling it "Martin's version," you give no alternate definitions, but rather limit yourself to trying to discredit the ideas presented by the other party (rather recklessly and disasterously in this case, I must add), and then you conclude:
...finally, I cannot, of course agree with Martin, for the many reasons listed above!!
It seriously is laughable. You offend the intelligence of this community with the absolute nonesense of your post!
Perhaps you would like to quote the real scientists and philosophers of science you mentioned. Lets hear their particular definition of empiricism and then we will see if there is anything left of your argument.
My compliments at an eloquent expression of nothingness.
YOU TRULY ARE A BIG BIG BIG LIAR!!! REMEMBER ZOE, AS YOU SAID, ANYONE WHO TRIES TO PUSH FALSE NOTIONS, EVEN UNKNOWINGLY, IS A LIAR (quote from Zoe)
Perhaps I will conclude by wishing ...MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU. This seems to fit your mentality well, much better than Martin's exceptional explanation on empiricism!
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Zoe... Re: Since y'all seem to feel free to speak for Mikwut, -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: mikwut ®
03/11/2002, 01:36:37
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you Zoe for grasping some of the nuances of the parts of my arguments you read. Your perceived ignorance seems to run deeper than Martins and vines current abilities. I could not have said the following any better:
"Finally, I cannot, of course agree with Martin, for the many reasons listed above, that Mikwut's issue is really a matter of the "weight" to be accorded to personal, subjective experience. However, since Martin brings it up, and again for the sake of discussion, that we have a tendency to fool ourselves and seek out confirmatory evidence of whatever we've fooled ourselves into believing, is true for all of us. Martin's "empiricism" cannot really inoculate him in this regard, much as he seems to hope and believe that it does. In addition, IMO (and opinions are all that any of us really have after all) there are no truly convincing reasons (which is the best that we can really hope at present to have) empirical or otherwise, to believe that it is anymore unlikely that God exists than it is likely."
This is why I have pointed out to Martin that he is oft times landing on the opposite end of the religious fundamentalism he decries.
also, the following is very poignant and articulate:
"the fact that I profess Christianity DOES NOT conflict with my views regarding the usefulness of empiricism as a method, and my acceptance of the findings of good empiricism."
Good night,
mikwut
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Self-flattering delusions Re: Zoe... -- mikwut Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
03/11/2002, 02:57:52
Author Profile Mail author
mikwut, However nice it might feel to have an inane, ignorant and mushy-headed cheerleader like Zoe smooching the ground you tread upon, your response to Zoe is but another piece of evidence that your views in this matter are, in the end, specious sophistry and self-flattering delusions. I can think of few things more intellectually terrifying -- even nauseating -- than having Zoe agree with me!
Zoe doesn't understand epistemology any better than she can recognize her own laughable chreses! Her thinking is mostly abysmally sophomoric and she relies on the bald assertion of counter-factual claims.
She's an intellectual fraud.
I had thought more highly of you, but considering your reply to Zoe I fear I may need to lower my opinion of your self-honesty and critical thinking skills yet again.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 05:27:50
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
(null post) Re: Self-flattering delusions -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
03/11/2002, 05:25:08
Author Profile Mail author
Modified by Martin at Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 05:25:39
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Self-flattering delusions Re: Self-flattering delusions -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: mikwut ®
03/11/2002, 13:32:36
Author Profile Mail author
Your personal attacks on posters betrays your more intelligent self. I will continue to look past it and not paint you falsely because of it. Although I am not sure if I expect the same respect from you anymore. I really wish you wouldn't have read that book that has so motivated you to think that making fun of people is doing critical thinking some kind of humanitarian service. I do respect your abilities and I love having an admirable opponent in scrutinizing my thinking. But Martin, respect, toleration and even kindness are not only Christian but just plain old true principles even in dialogue and debate. I believe my honesty is clear here Martin, Zoe and I would have enormous challenges in finding common ground due to her perception and understanding of Mormonism being contrary to mine. But I respect her posts and her agency in thought as do I yours. I don't think because you have disagreements with ZOE's thinking, just like I pointed out I would have as well due to my choice of faith, necessitates the childish behavior you manifest.
mikwut
Modified by mikwut at Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 13:34:57
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Will you ever own your faith, mikwut? Re: Re: Self-flattering delusions -- mikwut Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
03/15/2002, 00:03:06
Author Profile Mail author
mikwut, It is your disingenuous and evasive tactics that have earned my extreme annoyance. I am NOT the only one to notice your dishonest and unfair rhetorical ploys.
You have taken to lying outright and putting words in my mouth that I never wrote. You engage in intellectually dishonest and evasive tactics. You don't adequately respond -- and in many cases you don't respond at all -- to the points and arguments we raise. In short, you cheat.
You have stated repeatedly that you have emprical, objective knowledge of God. Yet no matter how or how often we ask for it, you fail to provide the empricial, objective evidence we need to evaluate your claims. Instead, all you do is very dishonestly and disingenuously insist on re-defining subjectivity as "objective" and epistemological Rationalism as "empiricism".
It is not your faith that any of us have problems with, mikwut. If you would simply and honestly admit that your faith, like all other faiths, is a subjective, non-empirically based choice, we would respect that and even honor you for your honesty! But you refuse to acknowledge the very obvious fact that your faith came first and that your own subjective experiences that lack any objective, empirical support corroborated your faith in your own, subjective opinion.
It is your stubborn refusal to admit that you lack any objective, empirical basis for your faith that is driving us all to such great frustration.
I say: Embrace your faith, mikwut! Don't be so ashamed of it! So ashamed that you feel the desperate need to erect your very obvious facade of "objectivity" around it!
Own your faith, miwkut!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
here it goes...part 1 Re: mikwut vs. the Empiricists; Advancing the Debate -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: someone ®
03/09/2002, 04:42:25
Author Profile Mail author
Martin, Looks like another dateless Friday evening for me. What better way to celebrate then to debate epistemology all night?
I must apologize in advance if you see my post here as too long. I’m going to keep it as short and clean as I can. While I have been following the Mikwut vs. everyone debate fairly closely, I have restrained from posting much on it. So now, I guess I’m going to be making up for that which means I have a lot to say. I’ll do it though in a series of smaller posts.
1) What Constitutes Knowledge?
First of all, I think we would all agree that there is an Objective World ‘out there’. I think we all agree that in some way or another we are bound to work within a representation of that world. I remember a while back you and I had a discussion on logic. I think we agreed that there is no guarantee that logic, or at least certain subsets of logic represent the Objective World. I think we also agreed that if logic and therefore language could not make ‘meaningful’ constructions of the Objective World, then its silly to consider the issue any further since neither of us believe that a human being can form any kind of a concept without presupposing at minimum, the law of non-contradiction. I think we have agreed in the past that one failing of postmodernism (or from my view many postmodernists)is the tendency to reason about the ‘absurdity’ of reason. I would argue that reason, in a very narrow sense is basic to the representations we construct. Other basics might be touch, sight, and memory. My understanding is that Mikwut’s position is at least partly based on Alvin Plantinga’s theory of knowledge where such a set of epistemological basics is augmented to include belief in God. I THINK Mikwut believes that this basic belief is roughly on par with the other basics and that they all are used to construct a representation of reality. I think he believes that this faculty is not equally endowed upon all humankind (just as some humans can reason or see better then others). I do not think he claims this belief in God is foundational in that it justifies knowledge in an Ultimate sense (I get the feeling that this may be one instance where Mikwut’s view diverges from Plantinga, I’m not sure.) Innate God-belief might be absent or very weak in many people. God-belief does not predestine one in a Calvinist sense. God-belief can be “denied”. This denial may be self-deceptive, perhaps its like the case of a Postmodernist who rationally argues against rationality.
So its clear where I’m at on this, here is how I plan on proceeding:
2) The “dogmatism” controversy. Hate to beat a dead horse but I need to throw in my take on this one. It’s important for me to do so because it ties in to how I will proceed with 3.
3) What I find difficult to accept about Mikwut’s worldview (for the record, I don’t think I can even come close to dealing a fatal blow.)
I am very interested in talking about this very important point you make (although it will be from a different angle),
“2) Whatever "mechanism" that purportedly provided him with such mysterious "knowledge" is not open to any kind of independent verification….
--just so that you know I am taking some measure to follow your format.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
(brief aside for now) Re: here it goes...part 1 -- someone Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
03/09/2002, 05:06:32
Author Profile Mail author
Greetings, someone! I am quite eager to see more of your reply (and I am positively ecstatic you have chosen to subdivide your response!)
We may have had conflicts in the past, but I am deeply respectful of your keen and acute intellect. In fact, reading your posts on this board have been a real education for me. I am confident this will be a real treat!
I only wish to make one preliminary comment for now (it's time for bed), and that is that I hope you have seen by now that my understanding of epistemology and philosophy in general is much deeper than the broad and simplified expositions allowed in the forum format and a reasonably brief post.
Here's one of my favorite quotations (IIRC):
Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it can be the very body of untruth.
- Aldous Huxley
With great respect,- Martin
p.s.: You may want to see my definition Of Objectivity
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: (brief aside for now) Re: (brief aside for now) -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Gunnar ®
03/10/2002, 04:37:11
Author Profile Mail author
Martin, I just wanted to say here that I, for one, certainly share your definition of objectivity. I don't see how anyone could have stated it better. Mikwut and others like him (at least I think he is a "him," and hope he will forgive me if I am mistaken about that) often seem to be arguing that scientifically minded empiricists are as prone as anyone else to start out with a conclusion and then selectively seek out or interpret only evidence that can be made to seem supportive of that predetermined conclusion. While I agree that even the most capable and honorable scientists have to be constantly on guard against inadvertently slipping into that fallacy (and sometimes do, nevertheless), they at least recognize that it is a grave error, and I am persuaded that, for the most part, they succeed in avoiding it. I get the distinct impression sometimes that Mikwut either doesn't recognize the extent to which he relies on that approach, or doesn't fully appreciate how deeply flawed and self-deceptive that methodology is. Gunnar
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Why do you and Martin refuse to take Mikwut ... Re: Re: (brief aside for now) -- Gunnar Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
03/10/2002, 14:22:01
Author Profile Mail author
at his word? Please see my list of recent quotes from Mikwut in my post thanking Martin and Vines above. It seems as if Mikwut has been presumed to be deluded. What could be more dogmatic that that? Incidentally, all scientific experiment starts from conclusions: they're called theories, which are then systematically tested, for accuracy. While I certainly applaud and respect science's dedication to testing it's own interpretations, I don't see Martin exhibiting the same integrity with regard to Mikwut. Do you?
Zoe
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
On Zoe, mikwut, postmodernism, and Richard Rorty Re: Why do you and Martin refuse to take Mikwut ... -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
03/11/2002, 00:26:29
Author Profile Mail author
Zoe, Your not-surprising abject failure to understand mikwut's position and arguments and to so ludicrously misstate my own is a result of your profound ignorance of actual philosophy and your typically very shallow comprehension of epistemology, compounded by your inexcusable failure to read the actual postings in this debate that began long before we moved to this board.
If you were better informed, you would know as well as I that mikwut's position and arguments have been POWERFULLY influenced by the intellectual hoax known as "postmodernism" and in particular the noted postmodernist "philosopher", Richard Rorty.
Let's look at some of Rorty's words in order to help elucidate the philosophical background of mikwut's thoughts and arguments, shall we?
We understand knowledge when we understand the social justification of belief, and thus have no need to view it as accuracy of representation.But at least mikwut understands epistemology and philosophy in general, even if he, like his mentor, has given himself over to the mendacity of subjectivism and nonsense for largely religious reasons.I do not have much use for notions like… "objective truth"... "true" is a word which applies to those beliefs upon which we are able to agree.
Truth is entirely a matter of solidarity.
My rejection of traditional notions of rationality can be summed up by saying that the only sense in which science is exemplary is that it is a model of human solidarity.
I think that the idea of a "fact of the matter" is one we would be better off without.
[Ironists] take naturally to the line of thought developed [in my philosophy]. The opposite of irony is common sense.
[We ironists emphasize] the spirit of playfulness... [We're] never quite able to take [ourselves] seriously.
Rigorous argumentation… is no more generally desirable than blocking the road of inquiry is generally desirable.
Once human desires are admitted into the criterion of "truth",… we have become [Rortyians].
Revolutionary movements within an intellectual discipline require a revisionist history of that discipline.
You, on the other hand, are simply ignorant.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 00:26:42
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I'm well-aware of post-modernism - ya moron- Re: On Zoe, mikwut, postmodernism, and Richard Rorty -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
