Prayer? Meditation? Something else?

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Knowledge, when defined as epistemic certainty is pretty much out of our reach, so I'm not sure why God would be different. I'm not talking about knowledge, I'm talking about belief, and you continue to say that if God appeared to you, objectively speaking, that you could not accept this truth. That's why there is something wrong with your epistemic norms. Any paradigm that de facto rejects truth should be discarded.

I'm talking about rational belief, the best kind of which approaches knowledge. What you have to understand here is that the truths we're capable of grasping have no obligation to conform to every bizarre absolute truth of the universe. This case in particular is one where it seems that regardless of what the truth is, it could not be rationally accepted as the truth to me.

That's not a choice, per se, but an extension of the method by which rational beliefs are formed. If you had the same experience as me and accepted the truth of god on the basis of that experience, I would argue that your interpretation is not the best possible explanation and so your belief is not as rational as it could otherwise be.

Whether or not you reject it is not really my concern, but I'm only pointing out the logical inconsistency with your paradigm that necessarily rejects truth because it doesn't conform to your expectations.

There's no logical inconsistency. There is only humility when it comes to what we can and cannot know. I imagine you would take the personal experience of god as evidence for god because of prior beliefs that would cohere with that conclusion. I do not share those beliefs. Jumping to that conclusion cannot be done on rational grounds for me, nor (I would argue) for many others.

Look at what you're saying: "If God appeared to me...I would reject it as evidence." This is extremely problematic, philosophically, and epistemically. Not even God himself could convince you of God. I also don't think it's entirely consistent with your approach in general, you likely have other beliefs you don't hold to this level of scrutiny, because we all do.

I see it as problematic to construct a belief in god based on such terrible evidence. The conclusion that god exists has a much higher burden of proof then the conclusion that I am hallucinating or some other naturalistic explanation of my experience. This is why it gets held to such a high level of scrutiny.

I understand you probably see me as someone who is not being intellectually honest, since I am not open to any evidence pointing every which way. But this is the wrong conclusion. The same principles that encourage openness to evidence also, at the extreme, bar certain conclusions when that evidence is insufficient, or appears only in the very mildest of forms.

 

[dontsnitch]

I'm talking about rational belief, the best kind of which approaches knowledge. What you have to understand here is that the truths we're capable of grasping have no obligation to conform to every bizarre absolute truth of the universe. This case in particular is one where it seems that regardless of what the truth is, it could not be rationally accepted as the truth to me.

That's not a choice, per se, but an extension of the method by which rational beliefs are formed. If you had the same experience as me and accepted the truth of god on the basis of that experience, I would argue that your interpretation is not the best possible explanation and so your belief is not as rational as it could otherwise be.

I agree that if I had the same experiences as you that I would interpret it like you have. What I'm suggesting to you is that if you have other experiences, perhaps you would interpret it differently. The problem is when you refuse to acknowledge that, and insist that you wouldn't. We can hold the opposite belief and both be justified in believing them.

There's no logical inconsistency. There is only humility when it comes to what we can and cannot know. I imagine you would take the personal experience of god as evidence for god because of prior beliefs that would cohere with that conclusion. I do not share those beliefs. Jumping to that conclusion cannot be done on rational grounds for me, nor (I would argue) for many others.

Prior beliefs are irrelevant.

I see it as problematic to construct a belief in god based on such terrible evidence. The conclusion that god exists has a much higher burden of proof then the conclusion that I am hallucinating or some other naturalistic explanation of my experience. This is why it gets held to such a high level of scrutiny.

I understand you probably see me as someone who is not being intellectually honest, since I am not open to any evidence pointing every which way. But this is the wrong conclusion. The same principles that encourage openness to evidence also, at the extreme, bar certain conclusions when that evidence is insufficient, or appears only in the very mildest of forms.

I stand by my claim that a world-view which rejects truth should be scrutinized more. My claim is fairly simple, but it's getting bogged down because the topic is quite dense.

Here it is as simple as I can put it:

In a world where there is a God, given your epistemic norms, you would reject him if he revealed himself to you. Therefore, since your epistemic norms cause you to reject objective truth, they should be at the very least questioned.

Where I think that you're incorrect is in your assessment of this hypothetical event. I believe if God did reveal himself to you (in a world where he exists), you would accept God. You would change your epistemic norms given the evidence in front of you, it's just that without the evidence you cannot make that claim. You're essentially looking at a hypothetical world with your eyes from your current world.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I agree that if I had the same experiences as you that I would interpret it like you have. What I'm suggesting to you is that if you have other experiences, perhaps you would interpret it differently. The problem is when you refuse to acknowledge that, and insist that you wouldn't. We can hold the opposite belief and both be justified in believing them.

Those new experiences would be interpreted within the context of all the knowledge and experiences I have accumulated thus far. Most of which would indicate that the new experiences say next to nothing about the reality outside my head.

If your knowledge and experiences have led you to a different conclusion, that's understandable, though I'd be suspicious of its justification. It also makes your statement that...

Prior beliefs are irrelevant.

...a strange thing to say. Beliefs aren't standalone mental concepts, they influence each other and can determine whether a proposed new belief is accepted or rejected (like they seem to be doing here).

I stand by my claim that a world-view which rejects truth should be scrutinized more. My claim is fairly simple, but it's getting bogged down because the topic is quite dense.

I don't reject truth, just our ability to reach it in all cases. It is a dense topic though, and once again I appreciate the engagement. Hopefully people reading have found this more interesting than the usual jibber-jabber around this topic.

Here it is as simple as I can put it:

In a world where there is a God, given your epistemic norms, you would reject him if he revealed himself to you. Therefore, since your epistemic norms cause you to reject objective truth, they should be at the very least questioned.

Where I think that you're incorrect is in your assessment of this hypothetical event. I believe if God did reveal himself to you (in a world where he exists), you would accept God. You would change your epistemic norms given the evidence in front of you, it's just that without the evidence you cannot make that claim. You're essentially looking at a hypothetical world with your eyes from your current world.

I do see it as unfortunate that I would not to be able to conclude that god exists even if he revealed himself to me in a personal way. In such a case my (dis)belief would be rational without being true. Hopefully he would understand this and choose to reveal himself in less controversial manner.

I'm not saying I wouldn't be tempted to accept the existence of god from the experience, especially given the social milieu in which I was brought up in. I'm just saying the belief could not be derived from the experience in a reasonable way.

I think you're caught up in the fact that in the event that god revealed himself, I would remain in disbelief, and be wrong in doing so. But I'm okay with this. It's much less likely than my being right about 99% of experiential cases where god seems to play a part but doesn't (ie. finding a lost toy ).

 

[elmo_1968]

Why does everyone in Mayberry think they need everyone else's permission to do the most personal of things? How many threads are there along the lines of "Is It Ever OK to Wear X With Y?"

If you feel like praying, go for it. If someone thinks that isn't right for an atheist, what are they going to do, excommunicate you?

I'm an atheist and I don't pray, but this guy does and it helped him
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...c8cf50-d915-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_story.html

I don't meditate either, but others suggested checking it out and maybe you should.

 

[dontsnitch]

He never said anything about rejecting truth.

If god revealed himself to him, how is he to know that's god?

Those new experiences would be interpreted within the context of all the knowledge and experiences I have accumulated thus far. Most of which would indicate that the new experiences say next to nothing about the reality outside my head.

If your knowledge and experiences have led you to a different conclusion, that's understandable, though I'd be suspicious of its justification. It also makes your statement that...



...a strange thing to say. Beliefs aren't standalone mental concepts, they influence each other and can determine whether a proposed new belief is accepted or rejected (like they seem to be doing here).



I don't reject truth, just our ability to reach it in all cases. It is a dense topic though, and once again I appreciate the engagement. Hopefully people reading have found this more interesting than the usual jibber-jabber around this topic.



I do see it as unfortunate that I would not to be able to conclude that god exists even if he revealed himself to me in a personal way. In such a case my (dis)belief would be rational without being true. Hopefully he would understand this and choose to reveal himself in less controversial manner.

I'm not saying I wouldn't be tempted to accept the existence of god from the experience, especially given the social milieu in which I was brought up in. I'm just saying the belief could not be derived from the experience in a reasonable way.

I think you're caught up in the fact that in the event that god revealed himself, I would remain in disbelief, and be wrong in doing so. But I'm okay with this. It's much less likely than my being right about 99% of experiential cases where god seems to play a part but doesn't (ie. finding a lost toy ).

As to the bold, I'm not sure that anyone is reading this anymore, but I had completely lost track of which thread this was. I had a chuckle at forgetting this was once about an atheist asking about prayer.

Thanks for the discussion, I'm going to stop for fear of sounding like a broken record, but genuinely enjoyed it.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

^ same, catch you next time.

 

[Pugilistic]

This probably has been mentioned but praying and meditating are completely different things.

 

[dontsnitch]

Really? That's why you're stopping? Really?

I've said the same thing for about three posts in a row, I've made my point pretty clear, and I understand where HR is coming from. Not everything has to be about conceding a point.