religious knowledge (of Dart)

[_mikwut]

Tarski,

First I should say I don't find atheism a 'miserable alternative'. But a couple questions:

(Dart) but because I cannot ignore my own religious experiences and blow them off as delusion.

Whoa! OK. Now....here we go. What were they? What was the content? What did you bring down from the mountain so to speak?

The concept or perception THAT God exists. I really don't understand the controversial nature of Dart's statement of belief that god exists. I don't want to speak for him but, he seems to indicate a 'perception' that arises in us as a basic or fundamental belief. Our basic and fundamental beliefs are unprovable of course but they arise in us as basic acts of acknowledgment as a direct bearing of our mind upon reality in a basic act of cognitive assent or acknowledgment. Disagreeing with the corresponding reality of this innate basic act is certainly a possibility but addressing it as a mere fancy is unsatisfying and dismissing it doesn't fully address its irrationality either.

Second, I would suppose the religious experiences of such a fundamental nature could contain conceptual understandings such as my life has meaning, God loves me etc... The existence alone of these fundamental convictions count as evidence, although no one is compulsorily compelled to them. A conception of WHAT is not required or dismissive of a perception of THAT.

And then there is also the matter of teleological evidence that no atheist has been able to address.

OK, give the evidence so we can see for ourselves.

I could be wrong but most of what I have read Dart saying regarding the teleological evidence for a designer are of the form of we observe the coming into existence of humanly designed artifacts, and by some type of abstraction we notice certain commonalities among them. We then infer that those constitute generally reliable marks of design and we then inductively extend this generality to things in nature, thereby identifying relevant things as also designed.
But, if one takes a more Reidian or perceptual approach to this another level of confirming evidence is provided. If 'design' is perceived then Dart is on to something that the scientific discoveries can be confirming evidence (even if not compelling evidence) of the corresponding same belief that perceptual arose in our faculties.

Anyway those assumptions, if they be there, are no more irrational than the assumptions of multiverses or the assumption that more than one kind of life can come into existence as the article you posted assumes in order to argue against what Dart argues for. So one could ask you the same question, give the evidence so we can see for ourselves.

my regards, mikwut

[_JohnStuartMill]

You gotta remember that Greek thought was pretty diverse, too. Epicureanism isn't a far cry from utilitarianism, for example.

That's why I said it varies a lot. I just think virtue ethics is probably what is best associated with the Greeks.

Whoops! You did say that. My bad.

[_Tarski]

Tarski,

First I should say I don't find atheism a 'miserable alternative'. But a couple questions:

(Dart) but because I cannot ignore my own religious experiences and blow them off as delusion.

Whoa! OK. Now....here we go. What were they? What was the content? What did you bring down from the mountain so to speak?

The concept or perception THAT God exists. I really don't understand the controversial nature of Dart's statement of belief that god exists. I don't want to speak for him but, he seems to indicate a 'perception' that arises in us as a basic or fundamental belief.

You put perception in scare quotes. I think the reason is that you sense the incongruence of perception and basic fundamental belief.

It is funny that you mention this though because I do think that much of what seems to be direct introspection is in fact, the employment of a learned theory of self and thought. Similarly, I am convinced that what feels like a sort of direct unstructured acknowledgment of something like God, is really hiding a very structured and socially conditioned judgment.
This would make God a learned idea even right in the moment he/she/it feels like something pressing on us as a transcendent reality.

Our basic and fundamental beliefs are unprovable of course but they arise in us as basic acts of acknowledgment as a direct bearing of our mind upon reality in a basic act of cognitive assent or acknowledgment. Disagreeing with the corresponding reality of this innate basic act is certainly a possibility but addressing it as a mere fancy is unsatisfying and dismissing it doesn't fully address its irrationality either.

See above

Second, I would suppose the religious experiences of such a fundamental nature could contain conceptual understandings such as my life has meaning, God loves me etc...

Well, my life does have meaning since I am human and that is what humans are--Dasein, being-in-the-world as Heidegger would have. How is this evidence of God?

The thing about meaning is that one needs to get over thinking that it is an irreducible simple perhaps divine given.
What we really have is immense immense depth. Social and biological evolutionary depth where everything's meaning is only such by reference to some context and that to a more fundamental context and so on to a depth that we can't master. The rock bottom kind of meaning--the atoms of meaning if you will-- is the meaning of "if this then survive, if that then perish". From these simple grains of sand, mountains of meaning pile up naturally by natural forces and the mathematical nature of complexity itself.

But spelling it out it like trying to explain all of history (or much worse) and also a bit like spelling out, molecule by molecule, how the properties of individual water molecules can come together give rise to "wetness". Spell out wetness in terms of the equations of physics.

Yet who thinks that it isn't the case in principle? Who thinks something extra must be added to H2O interations to get wetness?

The existence alone of these fundamental convictions count as evidence,

It is hard to see how convictions as such could count as evidence. Does Billy Bob's conviction that earth is 6000 years old count as evidence for such a proposition.

[_mikwut]

Hello Tarski,

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them and quite frankly find correspondence with them even within my theistic framework. On the critical side they do leave me with a sense of you haven't convinced me that you have that much depth really figured out.

You put perception in scare quotes. I think the reason is that you sense the incongruence of perception and basic fundamental belief.

My fault. Incongruence seems a bit strong, conceptual difference maybe.

It is funny that you mention this though because I do think that much of what seems to be direct introspection is in fact, the employment of a learned theory of self and thought. Similarly, I am convinced that what feels like a sort of direct unstructured acknowledgment of something like God, is really hiding a very structured and socially conditioned judgment.

Could be. It can't be proven either way. It also very well might be exactly what it cognates to us, a correct perception from our fairly reliable human faculties that God in fact exists. When I perceive colors or objects I don't employ the skeptical induction you do, in fact it hardly seems necessary but for the uncomfortable nature of the perception of deity. I don't want to extend that as an exact analogy but one that I think intellectually works, the perception of God isn't forced on us but can be very compelling.

Well, my life does have meaning since I am human and that is what human are--Dasein, being-in-the-world as Heidegger would have. How is this evidence of God?

I hope I didn't unnecessarily imply that a derived further conceptual understanding from the perception that God exists like "my life has meaning" excludes the same outside of that perception. It doesn't. But it does follow within the framework I was working with. The evidential base for it is that it grounds meaning in a different way then Heidegger did or could (without dismissing his utter genius) - and allows for a discovering of meaning that you admit as do I gets rather cloudy. But, if a theist discovers within his basic faculties cognitions that are later discovered through the scientific method this is evidential for the reliability of innate faculties, we can trust them in a general way.

What we really have is immense immense depth.

For certain. Reality also presses that on us.

Social and biological evolutionary depth where everything's meaning is only such by reference to some context and that to a more fundamental context and so on to a depth that we can't master. The rock bottom kind of meaning--the atoms of meaning if you will-- is the meaning of "if this then survive, if that then perish". From these simple grains of sand, mountains of meaning pile up naturally by natural forces and the mathematical nature of complexity itself.

This is what I was referring to at the beginning, your sacred cow of mathematics is respectable, but no more than Descartes it has already shown to be not completely satisfying at the level of rock bottom as you put it. Survival is certainly an important ingredient in meaning and God would certainly appreciate the concept as well.

Best, mikwut

[_Some Schmo]

This should be read by anyone starting down the anthropic thinking path:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vste ... intel.html

That was fascinating. Great read.

I always thought the fine-tuning argument was lacking due just to the incredible waste it implies. If the universe were really finely tuned for life, what's the point of having practically 100% (99.99999999999... and so on) of it non-conducive to carbon-based life? It makes no sense whatsoever.

[_EAllusion]

What Kevin was arguing here and tends to argue elsewhere was not the proper basicality arguments you are fond of Mikwut. With all due respect, you seem to have read your thoughts into someone else's.

Kevin's is just repeating a straightforward fine-tuning argument, a biological design argument also known as intelligent design also known as creationism, and possibly half a moral argument. In the latter case, he's clearly arguing that the existence of a deity is necessary to ground the moral properties he desires, but he hasn't gone to the trouble of establishing what he wants is actually case in order to justify theistic belief.

[_EAllusion]

Tarski -

Mikwut is offering a type of argument that is relatively esoteric. He's arguing that belief in God is properly basic. In short, he's arguing that it is something you fundamentally apprehend with your senses and base all your other rational thoughts around. It provides the foundation from which you justify other beliefs. Hence, you do not need any evidence or argument for it. It is at the base of your justification tree and should be taken for granted. This is something that takes some background knowledge in epistemology to best process. Otherwise, it can get disorienting. If you read a little Alvin Plantinga on this kind of argument you'll see where Mikwut is going here.

[_EAllusion]

Oh but he is an atheist so we can assume his is a stupid biased liar-- right? Ya, but maybe he wouldn't be an atheist if the logic and science led elsewhere (don't put the intellectual cart before the horse)

Heh. Victor Stenger is good when responding to this kind of argument.

You know, there is not a single argument for the existence of God that doesn't have theists disputing it. Indeed, there's not a single theistic argument that has dominant status in its proper field in academia, regardless of the religious belief of the academics. One doesn't have to find an atheist to rebut a theistic argument. It is very common for people offering a argument for God to imply the lines are drawn between theists who accept the argument and atheists who do not. That's invariably wrong. It's really between theists who accept the argument and the other theists along with atheists who do not.

[_mikwut]

Hello EAllusion,

What Kevin was arguing here and tends to argue elsewhere was not the proper basicality arguments you are fond of Mikwut. With all due respect, you seem to have read your thoughts into someone else's.

You very well might be right, I am fond of reading my thoughts into others on this particular issue because I believe it is so easy to misjudge an inference from a perception. I read Paul as stating a perceptual belief rather than an inferential one. And, again, I could very well be wrong but much of what Kevin says, particularly about revelation doesn't make sense unless it is understood in some way as perceptual. But, this isn't unduly argumentative I place myself as most likely guilty.

Kevin's is just repeating a straightforward fine-tuning argument, a biological design argument also known as intelligent design also known as creationism, and possibly half a moral argument.

First, the moral argument is a perceptual argument. Kevin seems to go little further with the fine-tuning argument in first claiming what he calls "revelation" to ancient people regarding some general beliefs about the "beginning" of the universe and such, and then he prescribes a correspondence to that revelation with current scientific discovery. That is similar to arguments John Polkinghorne has made in a more sophisticated manner. Polkinghorne uses the word "verisimilitudinous" in this regard. I added to that verisimilitudinous the fact that fine tuning corresponds to our innate sense of God.

In the latter case, he's clearly arguing that the existence of a deity is necessary to ground the moral properties he desires, but he hasn't gone to the trouble of establishing what he wants is actually case in order to justify theistic belief.

Could be. I think he also claims the same your criticizing him for against evolutionary ethics.

He's arguing that belief in God is properly basic. In short, he's arguing that it is something you fundamentally apprehend with your senses and base all your other rational thoughts around. It provides the foundation from which you justify other beliefs. Hence, you do not need any evidence or argument for it.

I find a bit of disagreement with Plantinga in regard to the need and level of evidence necessary. If correspondence with reality is found evidence beyond the belief is also found. I don't believe a basic belief can be a mere fancy. Thomas F. Torrance or Polanyi are more clearly who I find agreement with.

regards, mikwut

[_EAllusion]

Could be. I think he also claims the same your criticizing him for against evolutionary ethics.

I didn't really make an argument. I just stated an assessment. One has to presume Kevin is making a moral argument, because all he's really done here and elsewhere is point out that he finds the consequences of moral thought absent God really undesirable. He seems to imply that he's justifying his belief in God here. He could be saying that it's Ok to believe in God because he finds a world absent him/her/it/they undesirable for all we know. More likely, it's implicit to him that reality contains the moral properties he thinks God is grounding.