13 May 07
Originally posted by knightmeister
So what you are saying is that you are a bit like the guy in the matrix who betrays keanu reeves and his friends because he wants the chance to return to the matrix and forget that he is not really in a bubble of goo. He says at one point in the film something like "I know this steak isn't real and it's just a computer generated steak but (as he bites into it) you know, I don't care"
I'm saying exactly what I say, I try not to work in metaphors since not only are they culturally dependant, they are mostly immature and prone to misinterpretation.
Now your position here is fine but would you accept that it would be hypocritical of you to criticise any Christian would said " Maybe God is an illusion and it makes no sense , but I don't care the illusion is real to me"
We've been over this before, firstly I define faith as unjustified belief, my belief in a materialistic universe is not faith. Secondly, no Christian would be a Christian and hold a belief in god if he did not actually believe in god, so mention of illusion is just double-talk.
The problem is that if you debate under the banner that we can and should accept as real those some things which we know to be illusionary then you have forfeited your rights to debate whether certain things like God should be accepted as real or illusionary. You have also forfeited your rights to claim for yourself a rational position since you do not live by said rationality , you are only rational when it suits.
I have done no such thing, I am perfectly within my rights to conduct such a debate, in either the world of determinism (in which I am caused to do so) or in the world of free will, whichever you choose. How have I changed my rational status exactly? Everybody can be rational or not, when it suits or involuntarily.
Of course you would be more than happy to accept the illusion of free will because like in the matrix film , the rational reality (or alternative) is very disturbing. Authenticity is sometimes very uncomfortble.
Oh please, don't claim to know what drives my philosophical standpoint. I am not afraid of anything, if I was I'd be cowering under the shadow of god and the falsity of his 'gift' of free will.
13 May 07
Originally posted by StarrmanFair enough, but that belief descends from:
We've been over this before, firstly I define faith as unjustified belief, my belief in a materialistic universe is not faith.
1. Your belief that your observational faculties are actually showing you something which exists, objectively in some sense, even in your absence;
2. Your belief that your observational faculties do this well, by some standard which is, again, in some sense objective.
What justification do you have for 1. and 2.?
13 May 07
Originally posted by StarrmanThe problem is that if you debate under the banner that we can and should accept as real those some things which we know to be illusionary then you have forfeited your rights to debate whether certain things like God should be accepted as real or illusionary. You have also forfeited your rights to claim for yourself a rational position since you do not live by said rationality , you are only rational when it suits. KM
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]So what you are saying is that you are a bit like the guy in the matrix who betrays keanu reeves and his friends because he wants the chance to return to the matrix and forget that he is not really in a bubble of goo. He says at one point in the film something like "I know this steak isn't real and it's just a c ...[text shortened]... 'd be cowering under the shadow of god and the falsity of his 'gift' of free will.
I have done no such thing, I am perfectly within my rights to conduct such a debate, in either the world of determinism (in which I am caused to do so) or in the world of free will, whichever you choose. How have I changed my rational status exactly? Everybody can be rational or not, when it suits or involuntarily STARRMAN
Of course you are within your rights to debate but if you expect people to take you seriously on the issue of rational consistency then you need to show that you are doing this yourself.
For example , you said...(on the subject of God existing)....
".... it's that people are confused, a little bit lonely, scarred about their place in the universe and have invented him" STARRMAN
This implies that you see belief in God as an illusionary invention designed to comfort and reassure...and yet you admit yourself that you yourself live by an illusionary invention which you call free will and moral responsibilty. You have no intention of applying what you rationally believe to be true and prefer to live under an imaginary illusion. Still , though, you think that you can criticise Christian belief on the same basis of it being an illusionary invention to live by AND you expect me to take you seriously?
It is you that sounds confused. It is one thing to say that you are prepared to live under an illusionary invented system that is out of step with what you rationally believe . It is another thing to then go on the attack claiming God is an illusionary invention and that rationally it doesn't add up.
I suggest you are projecting your own values onto others . If you haven't got the guts to live by what your intellect tells you is true then don't snipe at Christians for "inventing" and illusionary God. You have not earned that right. Stop accusing others of something you are doing yourself.
I could easily point out that living with the thought that we are not free or morally responsible for our actions could be very disturbing for you and that there would be all sorts of reasons why you would want to preserve the illusion of free will. Tell me why do you choose to live in your illusionary world instead of the real one? Are you sure it's not fear?
13 May 07
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyParsimony; I doubt very much whether anybody can prove the nature of the objective world, so I accept a common sense view of the world. Even if I accept that it cannot be proved, there is enough evidence to suggest the belief is justified.
Fair enough, but that belief descends from:
1. Your belief that your observational faculties are actually showing you something which exists, objectively in some sense, even in your absence;
2. Your belief that your observational faculties do this well, by some standard which is, again, in some sense objective.
What justification do you have for 1. and 2.?
13 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf you can't be bothered to work out the reply and quote system, I'm not sure I can be bothered to read a post of bold text which includes my original points twice.
The problem is that if you debate under the banner that we can and should accept as real those some things which we know to be illusionary then you have forfeited your rights to debate whether certain things like God should be accepted as real or illusionary. You have also forfeited your rights to claim for yourself a rational position since you do not to live in your illusionary world instead of the real one? Are you sure it's not fear?
Besides, you've failed to consider any of the points I made, instead reiterating your own points, from your typically circumspect epistemology.
13 May 07
Originally posted by StarrmanWhat exactly are you justifying? There is no evidence at all to suggest that you're observing any particular thing at all, ever, because you can only define observed things in terms of your observation. I don't understand what is being explained when you assert that your hypothesis is parsimonious.
Parsimony; I doubt very much whether anybody can prove the nature of the objective world, so I accept a common sense view of the world. Even if I accept that it cannot be proved, there is enough evidence to suggest the belief is justified.
13 May 07
Originally posted by StarrmanI have a specific reason why I re-quote and the bold just happens by accident. It's not that difficult to work out since I make sure it's clear who is saying what. I note with interest how you have avoided looking at this particular post. You can't be bothered to read it just like you can't be bothered to compare your own approach to rationality and illusionary invented systems with what you perceive Christians are doing.
If you can't be bothered to work out the reply and quote system, I'm not sure I can be bothered to read a post of bold text which includes my original points twice.
Besides, you've failed to consider any of the points I made, instead reiterating your own points, from your typically circumspect epistemology.
13 May 07
Originally posted by StarrmanBesides, you've failed to consider any of the points I made, instead reiterating your own points, from your typically circumspect epistemology. STARMAN
If you can't be bothered to work out the reply and quote system, I'm not sure I can be bothered to read a post of bold text which includes my original points twice.
Besides, you've failed to consider any of the points I made, instead reiterating your own points, from your typically circumspect epistemology.
Rubbish , I tackled two of your points directly , even quoting you to show which points I was considering.
13 May 07
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyIt is the least complicated explanation that what I observe is what is really out there. It would be a far more complex thing to imagine I was imbued with purely arbitrary or subjective perceptive experiences, since that would go against my natural inclination to perceive the world.
What exactly are you justifying? There is no evidence at all to suggest that you're observing any particular thing at all, ever, because you can only define observed things in terms of your observation. I don't understand what is being explained when you assert that your hypothesis is parsimonious.
If you're after a hardcore discussion about description vs explanation then take it to Skype, you tangential lion, you.
13 May 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI read it, I'm just not sure any discussion with you is worthwhile.
I have a specific reason why I re-quote and the bold just happens by accident. It's not that difficult to work out since I make sure it's clear who is saying what. I note with interest how you have avoided looking at this particular post. You can't be bothered to read it just like you can't be bothered to compare your own approach to rationality and illusionary invented systems with what you perceive Christians are doing.
You failed to explain why I should consider rationality and acceptance of illusion to be of any necessary connection. If free will does not exist, either we have determinism which renders any talk of my choices to accept an illusion meaningless, or we have powerless random activity, which clearly flies in the face of cause and event. You also fail to understand that Christians accept god as a propositional knowledge based on faith, not justified belief. There is plenty of evidence to suggest a materialistic view of existence is possible, there is none to support a justified belief in god. You seem to think they can accept an illusion they know does not exist, but that's exactly what they don't do, they believe steadfastly in the existence of something and place belief in it. Such a position is not parallel to mine.
13 May 07
Originally posted by StarrmanIf free will does not exist, either we have determinism which renders any talk of my choices to accept an illusion meaningless, or we have powerless random activity, which clearly flies in the face of cause and event STARRMAN
I read it, I'm just not sure any discussion with you is worthwhile.
You failed to explain why I should consider rationality and acceptance of illusion to be of any necessary connection. If free will does not exist, either we have determinism which renders any talk of my choices to accept an illusion meaningless, or we have powerless random activity, ...[text shortened]... the existence of something and place belief in it. Such a position is not parallel to mine.
I will say this for you Starrman. Unlike Barr and some others you do accept the implicit logical consequences of not believing in free will , which makes you more authentic than them in this sense. I'm guessing you are not a compatabilist. Maybe , I have not understood you properly. Are you saying that you rationally believe that free will doesn't exist? Do you then go on to say that the best solution to this is to live as if it does?
At root are you a determinist who recognises the futility of living by this belief?
I guess my curiousity with you is that you freely admit to not living according to what you rationally believe. To me this implies that a commitment to live rationally is not the way . It sounds like a commitment to live rationally as long as it suits.
13 May 07
Originally posted by StarrmanYou failed to explain why I should consider rationality and acceptance of illusion to be of any necessary connection.STAR
I read it, I'm just not sure any discussion with you is worthwhile.
You failed to explain why I should consider rationality and acceptance of illusion to be of any necessary connection. If free will does not exist, either we have determinism which renders any talk of my choices to accept an illusion meaningless, or we have powerless random activity, ...[text shortened]... the existence of something and place belief in it. Such a position is not parallel to mine.
No , what I am trying to point out is that you are committed to living out of synch with what you believe is true. In order to do this you must maintain a kind of self deception (illusion) or it wouldn't work. You must not only live as if you really can make free choices but also convince yourself that you are making free choices when you belief system tells you you can't. Surely , this creates a split in you. If it doesn't then one must question how serious your belief in determinism actually is , because if you seriously believed it you would have to work very hard to keep the idea at bay to maintain your illusion of free will.
I suspect that how you live your life and what you actually do says much more about what you really believe than any intellectual assent to determinism.
I think what it's about is authentic rationality versus disconnected intellectualism
14 May 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterPretty much, though that's only my current view. A couple of years ago I was very much pro free will. It is entirely possible that as my experiences continue in life I may change my viewpoint accordingly. Personally I'm gutted that existence seems the way it does to me, I'd much rather entertain the notion that I was an agent of my own destiny, a detached and functional subject in an objective world, able to carry out my own desires and achieve my own goals. Alas from what I understand about the logical implications of the material world, and in the absence of the supernatural, I see no other possible way.
At root are you a determinist who recognises the futility of living by this belief?