Doxastic control?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Are there actual memories connected with your friend?

Not quite sure what you mean. The person in the dream had the salient physical characteristics that I associate with this particular friend of mine -- he looked like him and had his mannerisms. Other than that, the dream had little or no resemblance to any actual memories I have of this fri ...[text shortened]... ing seems ill-defined with respect to prediction and retainment/falsification conditions.[/b]

I used the exact words you instructed. I could try paraphrasing them in my own words. --lemon-

Please do , God is unlikely to respond to someone being a knightmeister clone or something , he wants you to be you not me. There is no magic in these words , the only magic is the honest desire of your heart to seek him.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Are there actual memories connected with your friend?

Not quite sure what you mean. The person in the dream had the salient physical characteristics that I associate with this particular friend of mine -- he looked like him and had his mannerisms. Other than that, the dream had little or no resemblance to any actual memories I have of this fri ing seems ill-defined with respect to prediction and retainment/falsification conditions.[/b]

My concern is that you are not understanding the personal nature of this experiment. The objective of the experiment is for God to show something of himself to you personally , not for you to be able to replicate it objectively to a wider scientific community. You are experimenting with the idea that God can be known persoanlly by LemonJello and the results are for LemonJello only although they can be shared but not as "proof". The proof will be for you only.

You are not a testube or some particle but a living breathing human being with an unique personal make up. The experiment says that God can be known intimately by persons , me thinks you are getting sidetracked with the word experiment, it is not meant to be used as a scientific term but in a looser , more personal way.

EDIT- Heartfelt isn't really that hard a concept. The issue is whether you actually mean what you say or not. If one addresses God in a half hearted manner then it is not heartfelt. The question is how much does the address to God encompass your whole being (as opposed to a superficial intellectual process) . I think we all know the difference. It's just a question of sincerity and honesty. We have all seen politicians make disingenuous addresses that are not heartfelt. God cannot be BullSh*****ed , he knows if you are taking the pee or not. This is not to suggest that you are dishonest about your doubts though , God wants honesty on those too.

Originally posted by knightmeister
My concern is that you are not understanding the personal nature of this experiment. The objective of the experiment is for God to show something of himself to you personally , not for you to be able to replicate it objectively to a wider scientific community. You are experimenting with the idea that God can be known persoanlly by LemonJello and the re to suggest that you are dishonest about your doubts though , God wants honesty on those too.

This doesn't answer my question. I am curious and sincere about the experiment. I really want to know if what you are describing is real, and if there is any reason to believe it. If this is not "heartfelt" enough, then what more is needed? The only things that ever encompass my whole being are those that I find exceptionally important, and that relate to who I am and who I take myself to be. How should I go about mustering being encompassed with regard to a possible relationship with something that to me is an hypothetical posit? This whole experiment just doesn't strike close enough to home to encompass me, and I don't see how it could unless I had some antecedent reason to believe that God was more than an hypothetical posit. So, I'll let LJ take it from here, maybe he can encompass himself better than I can.

Originally posted by knightmeister
My concern is that you are not understanding the personal nature of this experiment. The objective of the experiment is for God to show something of himself to you personally , not for you to be able to replicate it objectively to a wider scientific community. You are experimenting with the idea that God can be known persoanlly by LemonJello and the re ...[text shortened]... to suggest that you are dishonest about your doubts though , God wants honesty on those too.

I'm not sure you are understanding our concern. As bbarr has also indicated, I am confident that I am displaying a certain "sincerity" with respect to the experiment, but I am also confident this does not suffice for the "heartfeltness" you have in mind. This is because the heartfeltness you procedurally require in turn requires a more significant commitment than is even within my active control to muster (in the absence of already having what I take to be good reasons to believe the original posit, which you know I don't have, this absence of which is why you suggested I conduct the experiment in the first place -- don't you see how this is all backwards and your requirement here is totally unreasonable?).

Besides, this is not how scientific experiments are supposed to proceed. I've never before been a part of a scientific experiment in which strong prior psychological commitment to one possible experimental outcome state is procedurally required -- and where the notion of reproducibility and the communal aspects of scientific reporting and peer review are all eschewed. These features of your experiment don't lend themselves to good science. If my approaching this sincerely in the ways bbarr alread outlined is not good enough, then this isn't going to work. Besides, I am concerned at this point that any outcome conditions I may submit for falsification, you will reject on the grounds that I didn't comply with the heartfeltness clause (which again are totally unreasonble grounds because the heartfeltness clause is totally unreasonable to begin with).

Originally posted by knightmeister
I used the exact words you instructed. I could try paraphrasing them in my own words. --lemon-

Please do , God is unlikely to respond to someone being a knightmeister clone or something , he wants you to be you not me. There is no magic in these words , the only magic is the honest desire of your heart to seek him.

I did conduct another trial yesterday where I paraphrased your words, instead of uttering them exactly. I want to be careful here about how I report this. The one dream I remember having last night doesn't seem to implicate in any way the God hypothesis (if anything, I would say the specifics goes toward falsification of the hypothesis, not that I have a clear idea of what falsification conditions would be). Much more likely, the dream I had relates to some sort of evolutionarily infixed desire or motivation in me -- at least at some level -- to reproduce.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I did conduct another trial yesterday where I paraphrased your words, instead of uttering them exactly. I want to be careful here about how I report this. The one dream I remember having last night doesn't seem to implicate in any way the God hypothesis (if anything, I would say the specifics goes toward falsification of the hypothesis, not that I have ...[text shortened]... of evolutionarily infixed desire or motivation in me -- at least at some level -- to reproduce.

hahahaha! Classic! Rec'd.

Originally posted by bbarr
What do you mean when you claim that morality "can be extrapolated with equal precision..."? Even if this is right, surely it shows something just about the structure of morality or the structure of human inference and does not entail that the natural world itself is somehow dependent on ethical norms. Though, again, since this latter claim makes so little ...[text shortened]... e seriously is the moral education of persons, with or without the religious decoration.

Secular ethics is inherently saddled with a certain paralyzing ambivalence; on the one hand there are the supposed objective standards of conduct, and on the other the subliminal assumption that ultimately right and wrong cannot be a matter of knowledge (i.e., we can talk and discuss ethical theories, but the assumption is that we have no means of ultimately knowing what is right). Therefore, a professor could teach you to think about ethical problems and familiarize you with ethical theory (hoping this might improve your character), yet be unable to authoritatively refute your conclusions about what is right and wrong, e.g., if you were to suddenly begin to rationalize that racism is morally acceptable, your professor could not definitively show you that racism is wrong because the assumption is that that cannot be known, at least in the same way the product of 2+2 can be known. Rather than make people better morally, secular ethics merely advertises the absurdity of human existence. Keep in mind, I am not denying that people in general have the ability to recognize and do what is right regardless of whether they believe in God or not. I'm simply underscoring the consequences of ideologically divorcing morality from God (the twentieth century is a good example).

___________________

Ethics is not the end all be all; if Christ is indeed the Principle of life, then knowing Him is preeminent to ethical considerations. Primarily because God is a Spirit Who infuses the inner life with and inspires a genuinely selfless love towards others, "against such there is no law" (Gal 5:22-23).

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm not sure you are understanding our concern. As bbarr has also indicated, I am confident that I am displaying a certain "sincerity" with respect to the experiment, but I am also confident this does not suffice for the "heartfeltness" you have in mind. This is because the heartfeltness you procedurally require in turn requires a more significant commi nble grounds because the heartfeltness clause is totally unreasonable to begin with).

Why is the heartfeltness clause unreasonable in any way? The "experiment" is a personal one. I am asking you to make it personal but also make it a genuine one. No-one is asking you to pretend you believe something that you don't. If you don't think there is a cat in hell's chance of God doing something then don't do the experiment , if you think there is a chance (eg 13%-83% ) then throw that 13% worth of committment and genuineness into the experiment. Be true to your doubts but also be true to any lingering faith you might have also.

If you have 0% faith that something could come from it then for you it will just become a self fulfilling prophecy and 0% will occur. If you have at least 1% faith then use it and offer that 1% to God in heartfelt prayer.

I really don't see the problem here unless your motivation from the start is faulty. Maybe this could be the point to ask yourself "why am I embarking on this in the first place?" . Make sure you really put yourself on the spot , look yourself in the mirror and ask it.

I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt but it's worrying that you don't seem to understand why some integrity and genuineness might be very important here. This is God remember, not some mindless force. If you have 0% faith in the process then don't do it. If I was trying to teach you volleyball and you had 0% faith in me then I'm not going to achieve much wioth you am I?

Originally posted by bbarr
This doesn't answer my question. I am curious and sincere about the experiment. I really want to know if what you are describing is real, and if there is any reason to believe it. If this is not "heartfelt" enough, then what more is needed? The only things that ever encompass my whole being are those that I find exceptionally important, and that relate to sit. So, I'll let LJ take it from here, maybe he can encompass himself better than I can.

As I have responded to LJ. If you have 0% faith in the possibility of God's existence then don't do the experiment. If you have 1% , then use that 1% to ask God to conduct the experiment with you and use your 1% of faith in a sincere , heartfelt way.

Originally posted by knightmeister
As I have responded to LJ. If you have 0% faith in the possibility of God's existence then don't do the experiment. If you have 1% , then use that 1% to ask God to conduct the experiment with you and use your 1% of faith in a sincere , heartfelt way.

An experiment is intended to be dispassionate.

What you are asking is for someone to try an experience. Please try not to confuse the two.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Secular ethics is inherently saddled with a certain paralyzing ambivalence; on the one hand there are the supposed objective standards of conduct, and on the other the subliminal assumption that ultimately right and wrong cannot be a matter of knowledge (i.e., we can talk and discuss ethical theories, but the assumption is that we have no means of ultima genuinely selfless love towards others, "against such there is no law" (Gal 5:22-23).

Pardon me for not taking any of this seriously. I would be delighted if you would provide an argument that starts from the provisional assumption that there is no God and concludes that there can be no moral knowledge. There is no assumption on the part of working moral philosophers that there can be no moral knowledge, or that moral errors cannot be remedied, or that disputes cannot be resolved. Your claim that there is some "subliminal assumption" to the contrary is pure fantasy. Your ignorance here derives from two connected errors, tacit in your post. First, you think that moral knowledge requires certainty. That you think this is clear from your use of the term "definitively" and your use of the mathematical analogy. Note, however, that since it is uncertain whether God exists, whether He could establish moral facts, whether we have a correct understanding of His will, etc., it simply follows that whatever moral knowledge the theist has is also uncertain. In response to the racist you may claim "But God says, blah, blah, blah..". The racist will reply "Prove it with certainty", and you will fail at this. What you will be able to do is to provide reasons for thinking that racism is wrong, that it takes morally irrelevant contingent features of a person to be relevant to their moral considerability. That is, you will be able to provide the very same sorts of reasons that the secular ethicist could provide. You may also try to provide religious reasons not to be racist, but the racist will only be persuaded by this is you give him reasons to believe that your religious claims are correct. Since you cannot show that your religious beliefs are certain, you will not be able to definitively prove to the racist that he is in the wrong. This brings us to your second error, which is taking your theory's metaphysical claims to bear on the epistemic justification of your ethical theory. You think that moral facts derive in some manner from God, and that this is a fixed and eternal feature of creation. You think that this entails something about the justification of the moral knowledge that the theist has. Unfortunately, whatever moral knowledge the theist has is going to be contingent upon being able to show that the metaphysical commitments of their theory actually obtain.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
An experiment is intended to be dispassionate.

What you are asking is for someone to try an experience. Please try not to confuse the two.

A scientific experiment maybe , but am I not entitled to use the word experiment metaphorically? Afterall something is being tested which can be verified for the individual.

An experiment of experience?

Originally posted by knightmeister
As I have responded to LJ. If you have 0% faith in the possibility of God's existence then don't do the experiment. If you have 1% , then use that 1% to ask God to conduct the experiment with you and use your 1% of faith in a sincere , heartfelt way.

I don't know what you mean by 'faith'. I think it is possible that God exists, which is why I am performing this experiment in the first place. Perhaps you could try actually explaining what you mean by 'heartfelt', since apparently my sincerity and curiosity are insufficient for the purposes of this experiment.

Originally posted by knightmeister
A scientific experiment maybe , but am I not entitled to use the word experiment metaphorically? Afterall something is being tested which can be verified for the individual.

An experiment of experience?

The 'verification' is subjective; highly subjective in my experience. And I would also suggest it is therefore not repeatable.

But still worth a try. I think a better approach is to understand the science of the universe, and the structure of the human brain, and dip into psychology and human behaviour sciences; add a dollop of experience; some background in religion and observation of many different faiths. Then try it.

Originally posted by bbarr
Pardon me for not taking any of this seriously. I would be delighted if you would provide an argument that starts from the provisional assumption that there is no God and concludes that there can be no moral knowledge. There is no assumption on the part of working moral philosophers that there can be no moral knowledge, or that moral errors cannot be remedie n being able to show that the metaphysical commitments of their theory actually obtain.

On the contrary, moral certainty is exactly what a person of faith possesses that a secular ethicist does not. Moral certainty is found through a direct relationship with God -- not through philosophy, science, magic, or myth -- but by relating with God and dialoging with Him. People can extrapolate right and wrong without positing a God, sure, but without having any trust in God, certainty is impossible. By faith I can authoritatively tell someone that racism is wrong, and by faith I can act with moral certainty. Whether or not anyone raises doubts about the source of such conviction is immaterial, words and actions speak for themselves.