This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

isn't the justification for faith is circular?

#161OrangeWizardPosted 1/2/2013 7:37:22 AM
From: AynRandySavage | #159
Would they " believe what they believe" if it weren't for said schizophrenia?


Would they see hallucinations at all, if it weren't for said schizophrenia?
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#162cyclonekrusePosted 1/2/2013 9:36:15 AM
AynRandySavage posted...
Would they " believe what they believe" if it weren't for said schizophrenia?

Well I wouldn't believe what I believe were it not for the Big Bang happening. But that doesn't mean the Big Bang caused my beliefs. At least not in a relevant way.

So would the person believe in devils if s/he were not schizophrenic? Who knows? Not enough info. It is certainly possible though.

And you're avoiding the issue of whether or not seeing a devil would constitute evidence under your definition as well.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#163Imperator420(Topic Creator)Posted 1/2/2013 4:45:51 PM
But OW, what have you proved? I'm genuinely not trying to be insulting or patronizing in this instance, so walk me through your argument. Let's accept the definition of evidence as something that gives you a reason to believe a certain proposition. In that case, isn't saying you have evidence completely meaningless for our purposes? If a woman's husband was lost at sea, and she believed he was alive ("I just know he's still out there"), would her love for him constitute evidence? It's an emotional reason, surely, but it's the reason she decided to believe something.

You might counter that this is just really bad evidence, but I don't think people would phrase it that way. There has to be some indication that what you believe has a correspondence to reality for it to be "evidence". In this case, schizophrenia is a better example. If the woman saw a hallucination of her husband, then I would be willing at this juncture to accept what she saw might count as terrible evidence. But there are others reasons besides an analysis of sensory data why people come to adopt certain beliefs, not all of which should be called 'evidence.'

If we grant that just wanting to believe - like the woman who can't bring herself to entertain the thought of a dead husband - is qualitatively 'evidence' just as much as say, the husband's washed-up corpse, with the difference being one of degree, then the term is useless. I would have to accept that you have evidence for Christianity, because logically, the very fact that you believe in it means you have some sort of reason to. I would also have to say that pointing out you have evidence becomes irrelevant and meaningless. And the fact is that people don't use the word 'evidence' like that, because they wouldn't be conveying any information. You're creating a tautology; anyone who has a belief would have evidence, because obviously there's some reason they have that belief. Are the chemical and electrical signals in my brain, which cause me to have certain thoughts, 'evidence' that what I believe corresponds to reality? If so, we should throw that word out and stop discussing it.

Your underlying assumption, I think, is that all forms of belief are buttressed by some kind of logical examination of data, even if the logic is flawed or the data is faulty. That is to say (from my point of view), it doesn't feel like you would define 'evidence' as 'a reason to believe in something' unless you were thinking that any such reason would be valid, if not good - that human beliefs are caused certain rational processes even if these processes do not always yield the correct result. I challenge this, because sometimes people believe things for totally invalid reasons like their emotional state.
---
I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast ... for it repenteth me that I have made them. - Genesis 7
#164Imperator420(Topic Creator)Posted 1/2/2013 5:15:54 PM
And for the record, I would not count schizophrenic hallucinations as being evidence except in a very technical sense (moreover, the specific type of technical sense for which OW has expressed preference). It is certainly terrible subjective evidence for the schizophrenic and the schizophrenic alone, if you accept OW's distinction between evidence and proof. But neither the Kantian nor any other epistemological system would regard the subjective experience of a madman as a good reason, or even a reason at all, for believing that what he experienced was real.

The whole point of the objective/subjective dichotomy is to overcome Cartesian doubt. Since we come to conclusions through sensory input, and sensory input can be faulty - as in dreams, intoxication, madness, etc. - Decartes and others despaired over whether anything could be 'proved' real. What people decided is that no, it can't; hence Kant's 'noumena', or things in their essence (whose nature we can never be sure of), and phenomena, which is noumena as perceived through our senses. This doesn't mean that we should say "Oh, well everything is subjective so I'll believe whatever I meant." Quite the opposite. In the past, people said that our perceptions tricked us and brought us down into mystery and illusion. They also said that things-in-themselves - viewed objectively, NOT as we perceive them - were concrete and offered truth. This was the heart of Neoplatonism.

The modern objective/subjective distinction does the opposite. Since we can never be sure of what things actually are, it's actually noumena or things-in-themselves that confuse, trick, and mystify. It's discussing the supposed concrete nature of reality that leads us into the mist. Our perceptions - what we see and hear and otherwise observe of the universe - are supposedly illusory and misleading, but are actually far more reliable and consistent. Nobody has ever NOT been a subject, so they could say whatever the hell they wanted about objective reality and be like "You guys are just being fooled, I know what's really going on." Can't do that with phenomena. All the sane people perceive them in the same way - all of us see that the sun produces light - so we take that perception and treat it as reality .

So yes, you might be in the Matrix, but there's no point talking about the Real World because the Matrix is all we get to experience. And with a posteriori knowledge, you can't just go off your own perceptions; the very fact that perceptions can be faulty means you can't just assert whatever you want based on subjectivity. Since discussing the Real World is futile, you do your best to learn about the Matrix, and you consult the other sane people who are experiencing the same Matrix when you want to confirm a posteriori knowledge. And you don't just consult anybody, but the people with the right information; so if you want to know about tectonics, you go to the people who studied the Matrix's geology. This makes sense and is consistent with the Kantian distinction. If the other people are just programs and not separate subjects - well, that's still the world you're stuck with, you still have to learn about it because you're not learning **** about anything else.

Knowledge of the existence of God would of course be impossible. That was one of the upshots of the noumena/phenomena distinction (God cannot be proved a priori, but would be firmly noumena if he exists). Kant therefore concluded that his existence was a matter of faith, not logic.

Of course there are objections to this - Hegel treated epistemology holistically, asking why we should distrust in our senses so much when they offer information on the material world and we ourselves are matter. But since you seem to adhere to the traditional objective/subjective distinction, there you have it.
---
I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast ... for it repenteth me that I have made them. - Genesis 7
#165OrangeWizardPosted 1/2/2013 5:47:28 PM
From: Imperator420 | #163
But OW, what have you proved?


I forgot.

In that case, isn't saying you have evidence completely meaningless for our purposes?


That's subjective, isn't it? It's not meaningless for me.

would her love for him constitute evidence?


Would her love cause her to believe that her husband is still alive? I don't know about you, but love doesn't cause me to believe that certain people are still alive, not even Elvis, or his stage name, Tupac.

. You're creating a tautology; anyone who has a belief would have evidence, because obviously there's some reason they have that belief.


If this is sarcasm: Do you often find yourself believing anything without a reason? Atheists say "You need a reason to believe!" whenever someone asks them to "just believe in God and he will show himself to you".


If not, then I didn't create that tautology. It already existed.

I would also have to say that pointing out you have evidence becomes irrelevant and meaningless.


I know.
That's what happens when "evidence" is subjective.
But that's not my problem.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#166cyclonekrusePosted 1/2/2013 6:07:13 PM
From: Imperator420 | #164
So yes, you might be in the Matrix, but there's no point talking about the Real World because the Matrix is all we get to experience. And with a posteriori knowledge, you can't just go off your own perceptions; the very fact that perceptions can be faulty means you can't just assert whatever you want based on subjectivity. Since discussing the Real World is futile, you do your best to learn about the Matrix, and you consult the other sane people who are experiencing the same Matrix when you want to confirm a posteriori knowledge.

This assumes that there are other people out there at all. That isn't so obvious. Let's say I'm schizophrenic. I see a devil in my basement. I then consult my neighbor and have him check my basement out. The neighbor confirms by sighting. The trick is that the neighbor is also a figment of my imagination. So whom have I actually consulted?

And that can be extended out to every "sane person" out there. Just as when I'm in a dream and asking the dream people about the things I'm experiencing. The issue is that others' reports are no less subjective than my own sensory experience--because I receive those reports through my sensory experience.

So I'm not so sure that a consensus of others' opinions is any more reliably true than whatever I want to believe.

That said, I tend to agree with most of your post. I think we just have to accept that "reality" is beyond our grasp and focus on the phenomena that we CAN perceive. Whether or not it reflects anything true or real is beyond our ken so we might as well not worry about that. My strategy is to go with with appears to work. When it seems to stop working, go with something else.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#167Imperator420(Topic Creator)Posted 1/2/2013 6:16:35 PM
I forgot.

Very funny. Not quite sure why I made a genuine attempt to decipher the nonsense you spouted.

That's subjective, isn't it? It's not meaningless for me.

No. The whole point of post-Kantian metaphysics and epistemology is you can't just say "that's subjective." That was my whole post. You're not some genius who just blew a huge hole in centuries and centuries of philosophy by saying "I just realized, I can say whatever I want, BECAUSE IT'S SUBJECTIVE TROLOLOLOL."

Would her love cause her to believe that her husband is still alive? I don't know about you, but love doesn't cause me to believe that certain people are still alive, not even Elvis, or his stage name, Tupac.

Sure, why not? Most people have some beliefs that they hold only for emotional reasons (even if they justify it after the fact with faux-logic). See Christians.

If this is sarcasm: Do you often find yourself believing anything without a reason? Atheists say "You need a reason to believe!" whenever someone asks them to "just believe in God and he will show himself to you".

If not, then I didn't create that tautology. It already existed.


You need a reason to believe means "You should have a good evidence for believing, or else your belief is bull****." The fact remains that people believe any number of things for various psychological reasons, unless you're also asserting that nobody has been wrong about anything.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but if it did already exist it served no purpose and conveyed no information.

I know.
That's what happens when "evidence" is subjective.
But that's not my problem.


That's not what happens when the evidence is subjective. All evidence is subjective and most of it isn't meaningless nonsense.

And no, it isn't your problem, in the sense that you're allowed legally to misrepresent philosophical concepts and condense revolutionary breakthroughs in a new subjectivist framework into "I can do whatever I want", not only deviating from the original intention of the great thinkers who introduced the objective/subjective distinction but actually trying to turn it into its opposite.

So yes, you're free to be wrong and then claim you're right by mangling the ideas of men who did serious work on the nature of reality and knowledge. Congratulations; if you don't find being wrong a problem, then it's not a problem for you.
---
I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast ... for it repenteth me that I have made them. - Genesis 7
#168Imperator420(Topic Creator)Posted 1/2/2013 6:27:10 PM
cyclonekruse posted...
From: Imperator420 | #164
So yes, you might be in the Matrix, but there's no point talking about the Real World because the Matrix is all we get to experience. And with a posteriori knowledge, you can't just go off your own perceptions; the very fact that perceptions can be faulty means you can't just assert whatever you want based on subjectivity. Since discussing the Real World is futile, you do your best to learn about the Matrix, and you consult the other sane people who are experiencing the same Matrix when you want to confirm a posteriori knowledge.

This assumes that there are other people out there at all. That isn't so obvious. Let's say I'm schizophrenic. I see a devil in my basement. I then consult my neighbor and have him check my basement out. The neighbor confirms by sighting. The trick is that the neighbor is also a figment of my imagination. So whom have I actually consulted?

And that can be extended out to every "sane person" out there. Just as when I'm in a dream and asking the dream people about the things I'm experiencing. The issue is that others' reports are no less subjective than my own sensory experience--because I receive those reports through my sensory experience.


But that's the whole point. It doesn't matter, because if this world is a dream, then you're just getting information on the dream and that dream is the totality of existence for you. There's no point in wondering if your neighbors are figments of your imagination, any more than there is in wondering "What if unicorns are real but I'll never know for sure because they hide themselves with magic?"

Note that I don't entirely agree with this. I'm discussing Kant, who I disagree with in many respects, because OW keeps bringing up subjectivity and he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Just because we're all subjects doesn't mean that you can say whatever the hell you want and expect it to be treated as valid; that idea has been shot down and demolished repeatedly over the centuries.

What's hilarious is that OW refuses to make any comment on the incompatibility of such subjectivism with Christianity.
---
I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast ... for it repenteth me that I have made them. - Genesis 7
#169OrangeWizardPosted 1/2/2013 6:29:49 PM
From: Imperator420 | #167
Very funny. Not quite sure why I made a genuine attempt to decipher the nonsense you spouted.


Really, I forgot what I was trying to prove. All of my irons are in different fires, and some irons are so long that they're in two different fires at once.

I can't keep track of all these irons and fires.

No. The whole point of post-Kantian metaphysics and epistemology is you can't just say "that's subjective."


Or what? The subjective police will get me?
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#170OrangeWizardPosted 1/2/2013 6:31:05 PM
From: Imperator420 | #168
What's hilarious is that OW refuses to make any comment on the incompatibility of such subjectivism with Christianity.


You keep repeating it like it's supposed to mean something to me, but it doesn't.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face