What does believing in God actually mean?

[baumgarten]

Sarkus, you misunderstand irrationality. Irrational simply means not rational -- that is, not derived from reason. Perception exists without reason; in fact you cannot logically deduce perception. Like Descartes's being, it is axiomatic. In addition to that come the issues of inaccurate interpretation.

As for the difference between religious experience and regular experience, I agree. The outcome itself is logical, however, because it can be predicted with knowledge of only predicate conditions. The conclusion one reaches about his own experiences is irrational simply because the experiences themselves are irrational.

 

[spidergoat]

That is why we depend on the fact that one scientist's perception of an objective observation is the same as another's. That is why we have standards of measurement, weight, speed, ect. Experiments are carefully designed to avoid subjective interpretation.

 

[lightgigantic]

Lightgigantic: There is a cause of all causes that defies standard material definitons.

If it can't be defined, it can't be debated. End of argument.

the mind also doesn't exist by standard material definitons - I guess we should also reject it too as a non entity?

 

[lightgigantic]

LOL, LOL, you crack me up, that's just too pathetically funny.

Scripture is not authority, if it were, there wouldn't be so many freaking discrepancies!

Get over it, your belief is a freaking delusion!!!!!

I think I gave indications how the discrepencies form

 

[spidergoat]

Mind:
The totality of conscious and unconscious mental processes and activities.

 

[lightgigantic]

baumgarten

I do not accept authority as a valid source of epistemic justification, and neither should any intellectually honest thinker.

so when your mother tells you who your father is, do you believe her?

To clarify your points, "direct sense perception" and "empiricism" should be the same thing. What distinguishes different methods of knowledge is not how much it is thought about but where it comes from. Rationalistic knowledge (for example mathematical proof) is a priori, or derived from reason. Empirical knowledge (anything informed by the senses) is a posteriori. Generally we do not recognize any other type of information as knowledge. In the case of so-called authority, there is a word for that: hearsay.

the distinction is that you can use empiricism to come to conclusions about things beyond your direct perception

 

[baumgarten]

so when your mother tells you who your father is, do you believe her?

I trust her despite knowing that she could be wrong or lying. If we accept authority as a valid source of knowledge, that means that we ignore this glaring possibility.

the distinction is that you can use empiricism to come to conclusions about things beyond your direct perception

All conclusion lies beyond direct perception. It's all empiricism.

That is why we depend on the fact that one scientist's perception of an objective observation is the same as another's. That is why we have standards of measurement, weight, speed, ect. Experiments are carefully designed to avoid subjective interpretation.

Experiments minimize subjective interpretation, but they cannot fully eliminate it. Is this supposed to pertain to the post directly above it, by the way? If so, then how?

 

[lightgigantic]

Baum

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so when your mother tells you who your father is, do you believe her? ”

I trust her despite knowing that she could be wrong or lying. If we accept authority as a valid source of knowledge, that means that we ignore this glaring possibility.

If you don't accept her authority how will you determine who is your father? In other words authority operates as the most sane path to determine something that is beyond one's ability to determine - that is why you were inadvertantly relying on authority (the authority of the empirical model of ancient history, tied in with a bit of the conclusions of human behaviouralism) when you were talking about the origins of religion earlier (" .... the first gods .....")

BTW at the moment I am just trying to establish how it is inescapable to avoid authority when discussing such things

“ the distinction is that you can use empiricism to come to conclusions about things beyond your direct perception ”

All conclusion lies beyond direct perception. It's all empiricism.

As an example one could look at a road map and determine that a distance between two cities is 1000km - sure you do it through the senses, but in one case you would be looking at a map and in another case you would be measuring theroad with a tape measure

 

[baumgarten]

If you don't accept her authority how will you determine who is your father? In other words authority operates as the most sane path to determine something that is beyond one's ability to determine - that is why you were inadvertantly relying on authority (the authority of the empirical model of ancient history, tied in with a bit of the conclusions of human behaviouralism) when you were talking about the origins of religion earlier (" .... the first gods .....")

I was relying on authority. So what? Reliance on authority is the most convenient -- NOT the most sane -- way to check facts. Doing so requires a certain amount of faith in that authority. Independent of authority, the identity of my father can be discerned using science. The statement about the first gods is not epistemically justifiable at all.

As an example one could look at a road map and determine that a distance between two cities is 1000km - sure you do it through the senses, but in one case you would be looking at a map and in another case you would be measuring theroad with a tape measure

The map is convenient, but to use it is still a leap of faith. One is not truly justified in believing that map, but one can still put faith in it despite the uncertainty.

 

[lightgigantic]

I was relying on authority. So what? Reliance on authority is the most convenient -- NOT the most sane -- way to check facts. Doing so requires a certain amount of faith in that authority. Independent of authority, the identity of my father can be discerned using science. The statement about the first gods is not epistemically justifiable at all.



The map is convenient, but to use it is still a leap of faith. One is not truly justified in believing that map, but one can still put faith in it despite the uncertainty.

So do you think it is inescapable to avoid relying on authority when discussing ancient history?

 

[baumgarten]

So do you think it is inescapable to avoid relying on authority when discussing ancient history?

Yes.

 

[lightgigantic]

So do you think it is inescapable to avoid relying on authority when discussing things beyond one's powers of perception?

 

[superluminal]

So do you think it is inescapable to avoid relying on authority when discussing things beyond one's powers of perception?

Good one!

*munches chips, waits for snappy comeback from baum*