that just makes it so clear that atheism is about something else not realted to facts, thinking, learning, ideas, or truth.'
| here's the argument I made | |||
 I should own this place! Posts: 405 (08/03/2010 03:35 PM) Hey, I like this place! | First, I am not going to present an argument in a formal way. It's more important to explain why the argument is logical. I did not criticize atheists for not making formal arguments, I criticized them for not dealing with the logic of the argument. Secondly, this is not a modal argument. It's argued from the basis of a rational warrant. In other words,it's not claimed to definitively prove that God exists but only that belief in God based upon rational concepts, ideas, and logically derived from the premises and inferences as a justifiable conclusion. That doesn't mean I'm claiming that it's the only logical conclusion. Thirdly, I expect people to read each line carefully and think about it's implications. I don't think of them as just looking the first line and saying "I don't like that" or quibbling some definition and dismissing the whole because they don't like one small thing. that is not logic that's not how one deals logically with an argument. you aer suppose to read each line and think about what it means what is implied if that line is true. The next line should be based upon that very thing, what would it mean if the previous line is true? maybe this is not formal logic but its' the way I do it and it's not irrational. Definitions: Sense of the numinous: intuitive sense that some special quality or attribute obtains to some aspect of reality such that it points to a larger all embracing truth, some realm of the divine, or some divine aspect of reality. (numinous means "spiritual" form the Greek Penuma). Ground of being: (aka "being itself") The basic aspect of being that is not contingent are particular to any temporal or temporary or contingent aspect of beings or a being, but is eternal, ontologically necessary, and upon which the individual beings are predicted. religious: Human tendency to identify the set of problems related to the nature of being human, the way in which humans define the nature of their own existence and that of other humans with respect to meaning or purpose on an ontological level, and the attempt to mediate an ultimate transfomrative experience through ritual or other means such that the sense of problematic is resolved in the transformative power. Religious Devotion: Personal commitment ot a form of medication (see above). Basic assumptions: all arguments are based upon assumption, even in scientific studies. This is not an argument it's just the background to the argument based upon things I generally assume about the sources of our knowledge at the most basic level. (1) The argument assumes that all human understanding of the nature of reality begins with the phenomenological level. That is to say the categories of thought suggested to us by our sense data. (2) Phenomenological level is predicated upon the five senses in addition to some insinuative senses that humans believe obtain from the nature of being human. (note: this is not necessarily esp or psychic power, just the regular sense of intuition). I include the intuitive because I'm talking about the most basic epistemology. Included with intuition is tacit knowing. It's a psychological function. I'm not saying that our knowledge of the world rests upon this, but it is part of the mix of sources that goes into our understanding of what's real. (3) Even our basic trust of "official" or "proven" or "empirical" "facts" are based upon, in the final analysis, the extent to which the regular nature of our perceptions have led us to trust such things. For example mathematics is trusted by mathematics because they study it. It may not be trusted by fish mongers or pig iron collectors becuase they have no experiential basis for placing trust in mathematics. They have not studied it. (4) The extent to which the trust that which we place our confidence in is related to the extent to which such sources meet the criteria: (a) regular (b) consistent (c) shared (inter-subjective) (d) promotes navigation in the world and in life. By "navigation in the world and in life" I mean we can use the perceptions to get by, either in physically understanding the world, or emotionally coping with the world. In this way we form trust about perceptions if, and only if, they work, they help us in the process of coping and understanding. (5) If we can logically place confidence in a proposition, and that confidence is born out in some way (vis the criteria just outlined) then are justified in our confidence and the proposition in which we place confidence is rationally warranted. Argument: premise: (1) Sense of the Numinous evokes religious devotion Premise: (2) The sense of the numinous is the sense of the special nature of being Inferense (3) Thus: Therefore being itself, the ground of being, is the object of religious devotion inferense (4) whatever is the fit object of religious devotion (the thing that evokes it at the core in the first place) is defined as "God." conclusion (5) since we have properly basic reason to assume this special sense of being exists as the outcome of our perceptions, since it meets the criteria of epistemic judgment, we are rationally warranted in placing confidence in the hypothesis that "the sense of the numinous" and it's relation to the eternal necessary aspects of being are indications of the divine at the basis of reality. Now let's go over again and I'll explain why I draw these conclusions: premise: (1) Sense of the Numinous evokes religious devotion this is a statement based upon empirical observations made by anthropologists, historians of religion and other social social scientist. The idea of a sense of numinous is old and is well documented in may areas: the works of Marcea Eliade, Karl karene and studies by Ralph Hood, W.E. Stace, William James and others. All of this body of work from scholars and historians link the sense of the numinous to the orignis of religion. The old 19th century sociological approach was to assume that religion was about explaining nature. That's becasue they were structural functionalists and they were trying justify their theory that things exist in social structure because they serve a function to the tribe; they did not understand the sense of the numinous as a serving a function, because they didn't have it and they shaped early man in their own images. Social scientists don't make those assumptions now. Now we look for the real reasons people think things, by listening to them on their own terms. Premise: (2) The sense of the numinous is the sense of the special nature of being There is a link from the concept of sense of the numinous to the concept of eternal necessary being (being itself). That is through the perception of the juxtaposition between infinite and finite. In other words, we sense our limitations as temporal creatures, vs the endless nature of the entire universe, we sense our smallness against the backdrop of the vast universe, in making these perceptions the sense of the numinous is evoked and we connect that psychologically to a sense of the nature of what it means to be (that is demonstrated through the studies on mystical experience--one of the major aspects of mystical experience is that juxtaposition between infinite and finite. So by contrasting between of being as a whole vs our own limited nature, we link the sense of the numinous to being because its evoked by contemplation of being. Inferense (3) Thus: Therefore being itself, the ground of being, is the object of religious devotion. what that sentence means is what I just said above. We draw certain conclusions psychologically form the experience of this juxtaposition that creates a link between being and the numinous, that link tells us that this special nature of the numinous is based in the eternal necessary nature of being itself. In other words the eternal necessary aspects of being (the vast universe for example) as opposed to any one particular being that is merely temporal and quickly vanishing (my own finite existence) grounds the sense of the numinous in the concepts of eternal necessary being. In other words we derive from these experiences of nature, such as the starry sky over the night time desert, the sense that the eternal and necessary aspects of being are where the divine aspects of reality are located. inferense (4) whatever is the fit object of religious devotion (the thing that evokes it at the core in the first place) is defined as "God." This sentence is logically derived from the information given previously and it just says that when we think about the nature of religion (apart form hating it) whatever evokes the psychological sense of the numinous is a valid object of worship, why? Because that's what worship is, it's commitment and devotion to the special nature of reality perceived in this thing called "sense of the numinous." Since that's the center and origin of religion anyway it's the final orbiter as to what is sacred. the sense of the numinous itself is a sense of the sacred. we can put this into a syllogism *whatever evokes the sacred is a fit object of worship *the eternal and necessary aspects of being evoke the sacred *therefore the eternal necessary aspects of being are fit objects of worship. now we come to the conclusion. conclusion (5) since we have properly basic reason to assume this special sense of being exists as the outcome of our perceptions, since it meets the criteria of epistemic judgment, we are rationally warranted in placing confidence in the hypothesis that "the sense of the numinous" and it's relation to the eternal necessary aspects of being are indications of the divine at the basis of reality. In other words it's just the logical outcome of what's said above. the eternal necessary nature of being (or our perceptions of same) motivate the basis of religious devotion and connect them to these aspects of being which are designated as 'ground of being.' Therefore, we are justified or rationally warranted in assuming that or in placing confidence in the proposition we are actually sensing some divine aspect to reality. this divine aspect of reality is what the term "God" stands for. We can make a syllogistic argument: *whatever evokes the sacred is a fit object of worship *the eternal and necessary aspects of being evoke the sacred *therefore the eternal necessary aspects of being are fit objects of worship. *"God" is the designation for the fit object of worship *Ground of being is a fit object of worship (from above) *therefore we are rationally warranted in thinking of ground of being as "God." Premise *whatever is the ground of being has an actual existence according to the definition above as "eternal" and "necessary" aspects of being *We are justified in thinking of the ground of Being as "God" since it evokes the numinous and is a fit object of worship; the term "God" designates a fit object of worship *therefore, we are rationally warranted in thinking that God has a real an actual existence as the ground of being. We could go further and argue that in experiencing this realization we find the epistemic criteria are met and thus it works as a means of navigation in the world, and that is the ground for epistemic judgment, in other words for deciding that it's real. the overall conclusion: we are rationally warranted for concluding that reality contains as it's basis that which we call "God." | ||
 Argy Lacedom | |||
 I should own this place! Posts: 441 (08/03/2010 07:47 PM) | In other words,it's not claimed to definitively prove that God exists but only that belief in God based upon rational concepts, ideas, and logically derived from the premises and inferences as a justifiable conclusion.I sort of stopped reading right there. It is possible to draw any conclusion you want if you select the opening premise properly. Like all philosophical arguments at gets down to GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). If you can test your underlying premises and your conclusions then your argument might have something going for it; otherwise it remains in the realm of speculation. Your very definitions beg multiple questions and are probably based on untestable propositions. [PS: I do like your definition of religious devotion; "personal commitment to a form of medication" sums it up nicely!  ]If the universe is "everything that exists" then God is part of it. If the universe needs a creator so does God. | ||
 Metacrock |  | ||
| I should own this place! Posts: 406 (08/03/2010 08:17 PM) Hey, I like this place! | Argy Lacedom wrote: can you say poison the well? if you take the tact that any time any argument opposes you it's just manipulating logic and so you don't brother to even read it becuase it can't possibly be anything to say, then all you are doing is proving what I always thought that atheists are farid to think, are bigoted and biased and too dense to examine the facts. Don't you realize that to prove your own view you have take the risk that something could count against your view? If you are not willing to that that risk then you prove automatically that your views are just hot air. thanks for helping me demonstrate the cowardice and bankruptcy of atheism. | ||
No comments:
Post a Comment