An Apple

[_Hades]

No, and part of the reason is that once an apple was introduced to me, I was told what it was. I trusted my mother at that very young age.

If you truly understand this, then you understand tribal thinking.

[_honorentheos]

..., one's emotions--one's reactions to stimuli--is not a reliable indicator of what that stimuli is. It is reliable evidence of the differences in the emotional make-up's of the two <test subject>. But it is most unreliable as evidence in trying to figure out what the stimuli is that is evoking the emotional responses.

...

Now, let's take sensory based evidence...<snip>.

I've thought a bit more about your comments, sock. I wanted to come back to the above for a couple of reasons.

First, I wonder what role, if any, emotions/a-logical responses to issues with the Mormon church played in your deconversion?

Second, what would you say is the process used by the mind to make use of sensory data?

I ask the above sincerely because I have answers for myself to these two questions, and emotion is not removed from the first, nor would I personally say that the senses could have any effect on me without emotions.

I suspect, on a personal level, that if we were to explore how emotion really functions as part of the process of idea formation and dynamic modification we may be able to better discern how to appropriately use it. Rather than jump directly to the question of whether or not it is valid to use emotion to prove the existence of God, I think there is a lot of ground between that should be covered. But that could just be me.

ETA - I think the interview found at this link is worth listening to, and approaches the question from a non-theistic perspective: How We Decide

[_honorentheos]

Something to consider, from another book but discussed in Jonah Lehrer's book early on - Silkworm Incident

[_honorentheos]

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I had a thought that related to this discussion with Simon and felt it was a nice add-on even if it won't entice Simon back into the discussion.

The following is from a discussion I had with a Mormon poster on another board a few years back. I thought it was worth revisiting because the argument s/he made is not too different from Simon's -

It is knowable. The pattern has been declared by God. He has told us how every sinlge person that has ever been born can come to know of His exitence for themselves. It starts with hope, it does not end there.

I think that the problem you and I have is found in your statement above. In it, you suggest that the proof of God's existence (unto knowledge, rather than belief I would add) is found in a pattern declared by God. Yet, don't we have to first believe that the pattern came from God to believe that if it is followed it will lead to knowledge of God?

And isn't that fairly circular in our reasoning?

For example, suppose you were not LDS and were exposed to similar truths and given a different pattern (similar to someone who was raised with beliefs in another religious system, christian or otherwise). Can you say that the pattern's success is predetermined by an outside source or by internal experience? I would contend that knowledge and belief in the pattern make using the pattern possible - which is a "justification" of one's beliefs but does not constitute knowledge outside of those beliefs. You acted in a certain manner and the desired outcome was achieved - justified! But your assurance that the pattern actually came from God rather than was the product of observation of human behavior (i.e. - a strong belief mixed with an earnest prayer supported by action will yield brain chemical response 'A') is not justified.

You don't "know".

I would like to think that we would hold such concepts as "truth" and actual knowledge to a higher standard than suggested in your statement above. I personally feel it cheapens both concepts to be so loose in applying them in situations where it is not justified. I also think it can lead to emotional immaturity as well in that a person may stop utilizing their reasoning skills effectively in favor of this "belief yields justification = knowledge" pattern which does not describe the world we current reside in accurately at all.

I know some if not most here will disagree. And perhaps it is a matter of linguistics. But it is one of linguistic precision to better qualify one's definition of knowledge.

[_Some Schmo]

I originally posed this question to DrW, but I want to give anyone a chance to answer it.

Let us say, hypothetically, that you are holding an apple in your hand. What thinking process do you internally go through in order to prove to yourself that the apple exists, and that it is an apple?

Now, before you all say "Oh no! Not another Belmont 'nothing exists' thread," humor me. I have a reason for asking.

I know I have an apple in my hand because I'm not a f***ing idiot.

H.

Best post in the thread (well, up to that point... I stopped reading after that because that's all that needed to be said).

[_Socrates]

I originally posed this question to DrW, but I want to give anyone a chance to answer it.

Let us say, hypothetically, that you are holding an apple in your hand. What thinking process do you internally go through in order to prove to yourself that the apple exists, and that it is an apple?

Now, before you all say "Oh no! Not another Belmont 'nothing exists' thread," humor me. I have a reason for asking.

Would you lift your hand to your mouth and take a bite if you believe you are holding an apple in your hand, an apple you cannot see, an apple you cannot touch, an apple you cannot smell, just an apple that gives you a warm feeling when you hope you are holding an apple in your hand?

[_LDSToronto]

I originally posed this question to DrW, but I want to give anyone a chance to answer it.

Let us say, hypothetically, that you are holding an apple in your hand. What thinking process do you internally go through in order to prove to yourself that the apple exists, and that it is an apple?

Now, before you all say "Oh no! Not another Belmont 'nothing exists' thread," humor me. I have a reason for asking.

Would you lift your hand to your mouth and take a bite if you believe you are holding an apple in your hand, an apple you cannot see, an apple you cannot touch, an apple you cannot smell, just an apple that gives you a warm feeling when you hope you are holding an apple in your hand?

I wouldn't, because I really don't like apples.

H.
PS. meaningless post on my way to 300 posts.

[_Buffalo]