Almost definitely (b) with a few reservations (I could be wrong) and possibly (a). With regards to the latter, one cannot have an experience of God if, upon analysis, this makes no sense or implies a contradiction. And with regards to the former, how could one know that the experience is an experience of God and not an experience of something else? I'm not convinced that one could. One could of course be certain that it's the former, but that doesn't say much. I might be certain that my experience the other day was of ghosts, when it could in fact turn out to be just of a dim, candle lit, shadowy hallway, when I was tired, and in a heightened emotional state. Of course, I'd need to justify that it was of ghosts, but how?
Why wouldn't I take someone at their word when they give a description of their experience that doesn't contain anything controversial, like it being of God or ghosts or whatnot? That's being charitable, and it goes back to what I said in relation to anecdotal evidence. We know that people can and do have experiences which are profound or shocking or which they find remarkable in some way. It's quite natural and ordinary for someone to have such an experience or even multiple experiences of this kind in their lifetime. We also know that people can and do jump to the wrong conclusions after having certain experiences. I can relate both of these to my own experience. — Sapientia
Intelligent, wise, challenging, but we expect nothing less from MU. Certainly the distinction between a real god and a concept of god is a distinction that makes a difference. And it is one I wish everyone would make. How much more insightful, fruitful, and fair would be theology/religion and all discussions flowing therefrom if only participants understood the difference, and that it makes a difference! — tim wood
I happen to think the concept of god is uniquely valuable. When understood as a concept, I think much good results. Affirming a god in reality, on the other hand, has a uniquely evil history. — tim wood
Two nitpicks: confusion over the two you call a misunderstanding. I suppose, if it really is a misunderstanding. What it really is, is error, and depending on the who and why, maybe a deeply vicious error. At any rate, history is so full violence based on this error, among others, that the possibility of error not due to misunderstanding needs accounting for. Second. "either X is Y or X is not Y" may be infelicitous in a discussion, but it's scarcely meaningless or nonsensical. If there is a real god, then he either is, or is not, as claimed. Whether or not anyone is capable of evaluating the claim is another question. — tim wood
Second. "either X is Y or X is not Y" may be infelicitous in a discussion, but it's scarcely meaningless or nonsensical. If there is a real god, then he either is, or is not, as claimed. Whether or not anyone is capable of evaluating the claim is another question. — tim wood
There are (at least) two layers here:
(1) is there a reliable and and an unreliable part of a person's report of their own experiences?
(2) if (1) is true, is it only the unreliable part that is interpreted, and subject to standards of justification?
It stands to reason that if you believe part of a person's report can be rejected, then at least part of their report is unreliable. Perhaps you will hold that nothing in a person's report of their own experience is reliable, but perhaps you will hold (1), that there is a reliable part and an unreliable part. Then you would need to show how you are making that distinction.
It might seem that the distinction in (2) automatically matches up with the distinction in (1), but that is not so. It may be that all of the report involves interpretation, but the reliable part is interpreted in a way that meets our standards of justification.
Can you reason from the justification end backwards to distinguish which part of the report is reliable? That is, can you say, if part of the report is justified, that part was reliable; if part of the report is unjustified, then that was the unreliable part? I don't think so. It could still be that no part of the report is reliable. — Srap Tasmaner
I'll take the compliment any day. Thanks. That's better than what Sapientia says of me, that I'm just playing games and intentionally missing the point. — Metaphysician Undercover
Anecdotal evidence is evidence, and not proof, so it is not absolutely reliable. — Sapientia
That I had an experience a moment ago is not something that requires interpretation. It is self-evident. That it was an experience of this or that may require some interpretation. There are plenty of cases in which it does involve some degree of interpretation, and this is perhaps most evident when we get things wrong. We can be adamant that it was thus and such, when it was otherwise. Sometimes we realise our mistakes, other times we're oblivious. Justification is especially required if it's not a minor detail, but something hugely controversial.
It isn't necessary to reason backwards as you describe. What I describe is about reasoning forwards from accumulated experience. — Sapientia
Sorry, I was unclear. I was thinking of "reliable" in a slightly different sense. A person might conceivably be mistaken, say, about being happy, but it seems unlikely; we might decide to treat candid reports of emotional states as reliable, in the sense that people are seldom wrong about their own emotional state. I'm not talking, yet, about how we treat their reports as evidence, but about how they describe their experience when they have the intent to describe it truthfully. — Srap Tasmaner
Are you saying that an individual learns how to judge her own descriptions of her own experience in a way similar to how someone else might? Maybe inductively, something like, almost every time in the past I've thought I was looking at a refrigerator, it turned out I was. Maybe there can be other guides too: I am having that feeling that people are staring at me, but I have learned from my therapist that's probably not true. Is this the idea? — Srap Tasmaner
Yes. At least we can readily understand that feeling and understand what it would mean for it be true that people are staring at you. That is not generally the case with when it comes to purported experiences of God. You get obscurity, you get confusion, you get speculation, you get descriptions of feelings. But feelings aren't God. — Sapientia
Were you not? I wish it didn't have to be like that with you, but when you respond like that, what do you expect? There seems to be a recurring problem with you that distinguishes discussions I have with you from discussions I have with others. That wasn't the first time that I've concluded that it's better to cut it short and leave it be. — Sapientia
Oh, I apologize. You have my sympathy, so I'll offer some advice. It appears communicating with me is just too complex for your simple mind. If you do not want to play language games with me, then let's not. But quitters are losers, so next time I attempt to engage you in such a game, you're best off not to even reply, as some other simple minded members do, so as not to be persuaded into a position where you will be inclined to quit. — Metaphysician Undercover
Suppose I candidly describe the experience I am having right now as the feeling that people are staring at me. That I am having some feeling, you would consider reliable, maybe even incorrigible. But do I also know that it is the kind of feeling that in the past has been correlated with people staring at me? — Srap Tasmaner
It would be an additional step to say, because I'm having the feeling, people must be staring at me, but is there something you would call interpretation at the previous step, of identifying it as that sort of feeling? — Srap Tasmaner
Do I interpret my feeling to be the one I think it is, and describe it as, or is this something I reliably, if imperfectly, know? — Srap Tasmaner
It doesn't strike me as being quite like anger, for example, which is more instantaneous and recognisable. The feeling you describe seems to be fundamentally something more basic, a funny feeling, which is then interpreted to be something more specific, more complex. — Sapientia
How do you see the boundary here between what is interpretive and what is more basic, the inchoate funny feeling? — Srap Tasmaner
So would you say that "I felt like someone was watching me" contains more interpretation of the experience than "I felt angry"? — Srap Tasmaner
Is it possible for a concept to be valuable, and not in some way be real?
The point which needs to be made, is that what is described by the concept, through the defined terms, is not the same as the thing in the world which we use the word to refer to. So in some cases (the circle) our concept is perfect, while the things referred to are imperfect, while in other cases, the concept is deficient to meet the perfection of the thing (what I called misunderstanding).
You suggest a third option, that a concept might be produced as some sort of fictional figure. The fictional figure, like Santa Claus for instance, would be useful for some purpose, but have no reality behind it. This seems to be what you are suggesting for "god". — MU
I tried to save the candle. No, I think the association is error. Like this: "I misunderstand." The emphasis is on the actor, me. "I made an error, a mistake." Here "error" and "misunderstanding" overlap. "That is an error." This refers to a fact, the existential status of a something. My emphasis in using "error" is on the fact. Further, it is not the association that is the error - that's misunderstanding. The error is to aver that god is real, in the sense of a thing, perhaps even like a kind of human being, only with unlimited supernatural powers an abilities.If it is useful, then there is something real which constitutes the usefulness, and associating that concept of god, with that real usefulness, is a simple misunderstanding. Like "Santa Claus", the utility might be accomplished in more honest ways. — MU
I believe this is the correct understanding of god, by whatever local name he goes by. In this sense, god is very real. That is, god is a concept, period. But a peculiarly powerful one. To use your earlier distinction between concepts and things, god is not any kind of thing. How do I know? In any absolute sense I do not know, but by that standard i don't know anything, nor does anyone else. — tim wood
The error is to aver that god is real, in the sense of a thing, perhaps even like a kind of human being, only with unlimited supernatural powers an abilities. — tim wood
As to it's either being or not being a circle (or god), the question is not whether something is, or is not, something that it is not (as with, is this real circle a perfect ideal circle?) Rather, is this what we think it is, or not? (E.g., is this a circle or is it not a circle, as "circle" is understood in the context.) — tim wood
Well, you're welcome to go back and give it another shot. You might be able to improve upon your last failed attempt. But I don't think you will - that is, give it another shot and, if you were to, be able to demonstrate signs of real improvement - which would mean we're at an impasse. — Sapientia
So I believe it is you who needs to give it another shot. The appearance of impasse is simply your refusal to try. Compromise requires effort from all sides. There will be no agreement if one of the parties refuses to try. And this clearly points to you.I think you're playing games, so I'm going to cut this short and read no further. — Sapientia
Uh, no, I think not. The quitter is the one who needs to try again. — Metaphysician Undercover
I can think what I like, and so can you, and so can the cat and the dog. Now show me why any of such thoughts matter (except in terms of self-interest).What about God as the creator of things? Don't you think that there must be a reason why there are things instead of just randomness? — MU
Whew! I hope folks will read your paragraph. So much wrong, so little time! If by "god" you simply mean an answer to a question not yet otherwise answerable, you're free to do so - and you're in excellent company if you do. If you want to build a story around that answer, again, you can. If you want to make claims about that story, again. But, if you represent it to be a fact, there you have a problem. Before you take that last step, you're entitled to respect, Once you take it, you're a greater or lesser danger.How can we account for the cause of temporal stability without referring to God? The issues with quantum mechanics indicates that physicists are incapable of accounting for the temporal continuity of existence. And referring to God is not just a matter of attributing what is unknown (temporal continuity), to the Will of God. What metaphysicians, and theologians, know about the nature of the will as an immaterial cause, and the fact that it has been determined as necessary that an immaterial cause is required for material existence, leads one to the conclusion that a cause such as a final cause, similar to an act of will, is the cause of material existence. So there is good reason why the Will of God is designated as the cause of material existence. It is necessary that material existence has an immaterial cause, and the will is the only type of immaterial cause that we know of. So the immaterial cause, which creates material existence is designated as the Will of God. — MU
This is not something I am familiar with as a fact. Please make clear how it is a fact.and the fact that it has been determined as necessary that an immaterial cause is required for material existence — MU
As to it's either being or not being a circle (or god), the question is not whether something is, or is not, something that it is not (as with, is this real circle a perfect ideal circle?) Rather, is this what we think it is, or not? (E.g., is this a circle or is it not a circle, as "circle" is understood in the context.) — timw
Perhaps language confusion here? How do you get from the reality - the fact - of a concept, to affirming the real existence of what the concept is a concept of? Are you arguing that everything that can be conceived is real? Or just some things? Or, how about just that concepts are concepts, however valuable they may be, and reality is something else.This skirts the issue. The issue is, "what is the real circle?". Is the real circle the concept of a circle, with it's perfectly irrational pi, or is the real circle an instance of a circle drawn on paper, or physically existing somewhere else? If the concept is real, then how would you deny that there is a real God when you allow that there is a real concept of God? — MU
I can think what I like, and so can you, and so can the cat and the dog. Now show me why any of such thoughts matter (except in terms of self-interest). — tim wood
If by "god" you simply mean an answer to a question not yet otherwise answerable, you're free to do so - and you're in excellent company if you do. — tim wood
And referring to God is not just a matter of attributing what is unknown (temporal continuity), to the Will of God. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is not something I am familiar with as a fact. Please make clear how it is a fact. — tim wood
Perhaps language confusion here? How do you get from the reality - the fact - of a concept, to affirming the real existence of what the concept is a concept of? Are you arguing that everything that can be conceived is real? Or just some things? Or, how about just that concepts are concepts, however valuable they may be, and reality is something else. — tim wood
We can't even agree on that. Quitting isn't a bad thing if something isn't worth the bother. If you give me something worth my time, I'll try again. Take it or leave it. — Sapientia
A man can not reason his way to God. — Beebert
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.