BBC : Agnostics

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Pretty much. That doesn't mean we cannot make a mental construct of something, but the mental construct we produce is not going to be an accurate representation of the actual thing, and the two constructs are going to be different. Like the dragon and the crocodile. A dragon is not a crocodile, even though the formation of the former might have been influenced by the real world presence of the latter. I don't believe in dragons. I do believe in crocodiles. The fact that the original idea of a dragon might be influenced by 3rd hand observations of crocodiles doesn't make me increase my belief in dragons.


But the child does comprehend the car to the degree of his model. He comprehends that it is a big shiny metal object, that his parents drive. He doesn't understand how the car moves forward, but then his model in his mind does not require him to understand how it moves forward, simply that it does.

If the chlid had truely no comprehension of a car he could not construct a mental concept of it, no matter how simplifed, in his head beyond his imagination

You are overloading the word 'comprehension' - what you mean here, I think, is 'apprehension'. Both can be used to mean 'mental grasp', but only 'comprehension' carries the additional implication of a deeper understanding.

Wicknight wrote:

No she might not as well be Cindy. That is the important part. They might both be mental constructs, but they are not the same mental concept and that is the important bit to remember. Laura is not Cindy. To assume she is simply because of similarities between them would be a grave mistake.

Sorry. I was unclear - I do not mean that they are the same, only that they are both mental constructs, and it is equally possible for either to be entirely unrelated to any real person.

Wicknight wrote:

But he is not as a whole incomprehensible to you. Parts of his life are, and you have wisely not created a mental construct of these parts of his life, or at least if you have you realise that they are simply products of your imagination. If people did that with "God" we would not be having the conversation.

The whole point of my posts is that we should know the difference. You should, and clearly do, know the difference between the mental constructs of JC that are based on what he actually has done, and the bits that are products of your imagination.

I have a mental picture of what JC looks like in my mind. That mental construct, I can say with all out certainty, is wrong, since it is simply a product of my imagination. The fact that I have read JCs postings on Boards.ie doesn't change that. It could, by some crazy fluke, be exactly what he does look like. But I would view that as being so doubtful as to be certain that he doesn't actually look like the mental imagine I have in my head.

I can therefore say that the mental construct in my head of how JC looks (we will call this construct JC-A) is nothing like the mental construct I would create if I actually met him (JC-B). JC-A would still exist in my mind, filed away somewhere. But it is still wrong, and the important point is that JC-A never existed in reality.

To try and tie this back to religion, I'm an atheists because I view "God" as an imaginary concept in the same way that JC-A is. There might be something out there that actually exists, the way JC-B does. But that doesn't make JC-A any more a concept grounded in reality, or any less incorrect.

Even if by some fluke JC-A does look exactly like JC-B, that still doesn't mean JC-A was originally a valid representation of reality. It isn't because I didn't base it on reality, I based it on my own imagination. I could be, by a fluke, correct, but it is still imagination. It would be accurate despite itself, and such an event is quite unlikely.


Well all the examples so far you have given the person did comprehend the item they were modelling sufficently enough to model it. The child comprehends the shape, texture, colour and function of the car, and as such is able to construct a model in his head based on the shape texture colour and function of said car.

The only factor was the level of comprehension. Not understanding how a drive shaft works doesn't mean you find a car incomprehensible. It might mean you find a drive shaft incomprehensible.

Nearly all the models we use in our lives are rough approximations, and often admit of our inability to comprehend 'inner workings' of the actual object so modelled. That is, we cannot model what we do not comprehend, but we can certainly model an object we do not fully comprehend - that is, we can model according to our limited understanding of the object.

In my original piece of obscurantism, I specifically invoked the idea that we could have only a limited understanding of God - the Blind Men and the Elephant. That is to say, each person carries a mental model of God, and this mental model is what they relate to, despite its acknowledged incompleteness. I certainly don't know any theists who would claim their picture of God is complete - in fact, the ultimate unknowability of God is a regular theme (and cop-out) in theism. Equally, it is generally accepted that different people have different conceptions of God, of different degrees of sophistication.

There is, therefore, no reason why God should not be incomprehensible, and his worshippers relate to him through what they themselves acknowledge to be incomplete 'models' of him. QED.

cordially,
Scofflaw

beans

For all we know, our material, on death, returns to the earth from whence it came. In fact that's all we know. What could it possibly mean to say that our consciousness 'becomes part of god itself',

I think this was offered in light of his earlier statement about 'god' being the universe around us. In that respect he's right on the money - brain turns to dust, energy disperses and back we go into the ground.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

You are overloading the word 'comprehension' - what you mean here, I think, is 'apprehension'. Both can be used to mean 'mental grasp', but only 'comprehension' carries the additional implication of a deeper understanding.

Not really, you are defining the need have comprehension of a specific aspect (how the car engine works) to have comprehension of the car itself. That isn't really true. The child can comprehend the nature of the car. Because those parts are not the parts you understand does not mean that the child does not comprehend the car, only that the child does not comprehend the car to the same degree you do.

Scofflaw wrote:

Sorry. I was unclear - I do not mean that they are the same, only that they are both mental constructs, and it is equally possible for either to be entirely unrelated to any real person.

It is equally possible, but not equally likely. The mental construct of Cindy does not exist in the real world. At all. But having met Laura the mental construct one creates of Laura will, assuming ones brain is functioning normally, be based on a real entity.

It is the difference between mental constructs based on imagination and those based on perception.

Scofflaw wrote:

Nearly all the models we use in our lives are rough approximations, and often admit of our inability to comprehend 'inner workings' of the actual object so modelled.

True, but the point is that they are not all equally "rough." Some models we have are based on actual real world observations, others are complete fantasy.

If we invent a model based on complete fantasy, that fact doesn't change if by a fluke our model actually appears to relate to something in the real world. The example would be sci-fi. Lots of sci-fi authors have invented, out of simply their own imagination, views of the future, such as Auther C. Clark famously coming up with satellites. But that doesn't mean that Clark's concept of a satellite is actually real. It was just a coincendence, or clever imagining on the part of Clark, that his imaginary concept turned out to eventually be reflected in reality. But Clark didn't base his satellites on real satellites, since they didn't exist when he came up with the idea. He based it on his imagination.

It is entirely possible that something might exist out there that resembles the human concept of "god". But that doesn't make the human concept of god any more valid. I reject the concept as not being based on reality, just as I would reject Clark's concept of a satellite as not being based on reality.

As a side, I would also say that it believe it is very very unlikely that something like a god exists, though that is a different argument to why I reject the human concept of god and am an atheist.

Scofflaw wrote:

That is, we cannot model what we do not comprehend, but we can certainly model an object we do not fully comprehend - that is, we can model according to our limited understanding of the object.

True, but again the point is to recongise that any aspects of these models that "fill in" the gaps in our understanding based on our imagination are not valid when saying that these concepts are real.

For example, if a child saw a car he could probably form a mental model in his head about the shape, colour, motion etc of the car. This model would be grounded in reality. But since a child is unlikely to understand how the car is actually moving he would probably also invent a model of how the car moves based solely on his own imagination. He might say that magic fairies make the car move.

I would, straight out, reject the child's concept of magic fairies. This is not because I have proven, either to him or to myself, that the car isn't actually moved by magic fairies. I reject that concept because it comes from the childs imagination. He might be right, but if he is right it is a fluke.

If I later discover that the car is actually driven by magic fairies, that model will still be independent of the childs imaginary fairy concept, despite them being similar concepts.

I hope that kinda explains why I'm an atheist. It is not because I have proven the concept of God is wrong, it is that I believe that the concept comes solely from human imagination and as such is simply invalid. It might, by some fluke, actually resemble a real entity, but I will wait to form my concept and model of that unknown entity when or if I ever come across it.

Scofflaw wrote:

That is to say, each person carries a mental model of God, and this mental model is what they relate to, despite its acknowledged incompleteness. I certainly don't know any theists who would claim their picture of God is complete

But that is working on the assumption that some part of this model, no matter how small, is actually based on a real "god", just as the child bases their model of the car on a real car, even if the model is very incomplete.

I see no reason to believe this is true.

I suppose the question is at what point is God not God. For example, if a child sees a train and says "car!" their parents will probably say "no honey, that is a train". The child might confusingly ask what is the difference.

It seems to me that lately the concept of "god" is being made so vast and unspecificed that it includes anything we can imagine. But again that is more of a reason to reject the concept of "god" as not having a basis in reality.

Scofflaw

beans wrote:

I think this was offered in light of his earlier statement about 'god' being the universe around us. In that respect he's right on the money - brain turns to dust, energy disperses and back we go into the ground.

Exactly. Actually, what I said was "That at death our egos fall apart on brain-death, and all our material returns to being an unconscious part of god itself?" - which contains no statement that "our consciousness 'becomes part of god itself'".

It is not quite so much obfuscatory as obnubilatory.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Exactly. Actually, what I said was "That at death our egos fall apart on brain-death, and all our material returns to being an unconscious part of god itself?" - which contains no statement that "our consciousness 'becomes part of god itself'".

It is not quite so much obfuscatory as obnubilatory.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But since when did the ground become "god"? That is just an absract definition of God as to have almost no meaning. Why not just say it is the ground?

Personally I never really got the human need to alter definitions of things like God to fit around something. It seems easier to simply drop the definition of God. Its like the child trying to get "car" to fit around the concept of a "train", without realising that they are not the same things at all. God is god, the ground is the ground. Why change "god" so it can also be the ground?

Zombrex

Anyway, JC is back, so I suggest we put this light hearted (really, it doesn't actually matter if one is agnostic, practically atheists, or die-hard atheist, the outcome is similar) aside for the moment and get back to good old fashioned Creationists bashing.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Anyway, JC is back, so I suggest we put this light hearted (really, it doesn't actually matter if one is agnostic, practically atheists, or die-hard atheist, the outcome is similar) aside for the moment and get back to good old fashioned Creationists bashing.

From the Sublime (can one make a mental construct of the incomprehensible?) to the cor blimey (may I gently remind you....evolution is like a thing that doesn't work, so...evolution doesn't work!!!!!!!:cool: ).

You're sure you're not just running away?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

But since when did the ground become "god"? That is just an absract definition of God as to have almost no meaning. Why not just say it is the ground?

Personally I never really got the human need to alter definitions of things like God to fit around something. It seems easier to simply drop the definition of God. Its like the child trying to get "car" to fit around the concept of a "train", without realising that they are not the same things at all. God is god, the ground is the ground. Why change "god" so it can also be the ground?

Well, again, I don't think I mentioned the ground, did I? I think the "God is everything" schtick is pretty standard. It's not a definition, but an observation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

You're sure you're not just running away?

Sir, them be fighting words

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, again, I don't think I mentioned the ground, did I? I think the "God is everything" schtick is pretty standard. It's not a definition, but an observation.

But what does that actually mean?

God is "everything" Again it is such an abstract definition of "God" as to have no practical meaning. Of course it is impossible to disprove, as would saying "Bob is everything". But what conclusions or arguments can one draw from such a statement? It is a pointless definition that as far as I can tell is simply an attempt for some "spiritual" people (read "hippies") to set up a false axiom for further rather pointless statements such like "all energy flows between us and binds us together" (as I heard one 16 year old hippy saying to the other a few years ago at a performance festival).

It sounds nice, and it might be a comforting idea, but that doesn't mean it isn't nonsense. In fact the fact that it is a comforting idea is more reason to believe it is simply made up to offer comfort to those looking for it.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

God is "everything" Again it is such an abstract definition of "God" as to have no practical meaning. Of course it is impossible to disprove, as would saying "Bob is everything". But what conclusions or arguments can one draw from such a statement? It is a pointless definition that as far as I can tell is simply an attempt for some "spiritual" people (read "hippies") to set up a false axiom for further rather pointless statements such like "all energy flows between us and binds us together" (as I heard one 16 year old hippy saying to the other a few years ago at a performance festival).

It sounds nice, and it might be a comforting idea, but that doesn't mean it isn't nonsense. In fact the fact that it is a comforting idea is more reason to believe it is simply made up to offer comfort to those looking for it.

Well, "God is everything" isn't a definition of God - it's part of the description. The definition is the "incomprehensible" bit. As to being impossible to draw conclusions from, that's like saying it's impossible to draw conclusions from Mount Everest. The important point is that Everest is there. God "being there" is all that most people need. It's like monarchy - many people find it emotionally satisfying, but certainly don't want their monarch personally intervening in their lives, or personally telling them what to do.

Of course this is all made up. I made up that piece of mumbo-jumbo specifically for that post. The question is why?

It is made up to illustrate the point that a description of God so vague as to be totally unfalsifiable can nevertheless provide a vision of God sufficiently compelling to be worshippable by many theists. Even the fact that I personally made it up is apparently irrelevant - after all, I might be right.

(Oh, sure, they'll hang all sorts of bits and pieces of comforting nonsense onto the vague outline provided. When they do, I will say, with a bland and avuncular smile "well, we don't know, do we - God is an Infinite Mystery. Let us worship Him in an appropriate way by celebrating our lives as he might wish. Also, the roof needs repair."

Now my only problem is differentiating my product from the mass of disprovable Gods with more flamboyant characteristics.)

Therefore, the atheist is met head-on by a worshippable deity who is also undisprovable. This leaves the atheist with the rather weak argument that "he made it all up", to which a proper theist will retort "God spoke through him", and then onto the stake you go, with a pop and a sizzle!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Therefore, the atheist is met head-on by a worshippable deity who is also undisprovable. This leaves the atheist with the rather weak argument that "he made it all up", to which a proper theist will retort "God spoke through him", and then onto the stake you go, with a pop and a sizzle!

Well it is only weak if I'm trying to convince a theist, because the theist is in a delusion, and by its very nature it is hard to convince someone in a delusion that that is what is happening to them, since there is a normally a reason they are in the delusion in the first place.

But then I don't have to convince a theist, I just have to convince myself. And to me its a quite compelling argument. If it convinces others that is an added bonus

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Well it is only weak if I'm trying to convince a theist, because the theist is in a delusion, and by its very nature it is hard to convince someone in a delusion that that is what is happening to them, since there is a normally a reason they are in the delusion in the first place.

But then I don't have to convince a theist, I just have to convince myself. And to me its a quite compelling argument. If it convinces others that is an added bonus

Obviously I would have no interest whatsoever in persuading you out of it!

The whole thing here was made up in response to the standard argument about the unprovability of God - that theists move the goalposts until they get to an unprovable God. My argument is to indicate that you can have an undisprovable God who is also perfectly worshippable - so there is no need to move the goalposts.

I appreciate, of course, that nothing really follows logically from said God, but then nothing proceeds logically from the Biblical God either. It would be easy for people to claim revelatory experience of my God, and base my argument solely on the strength of my conviction.

cordially,
Scofflaw