Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Can I also remind you to to answer my post from the other day?

Particularly the following part, as it is a question not impacted by the plausibility of the existence of the hypothetical onlooker:

Why are you convinced? There are people who hold that their eyes were "opened" by the their god and their beliefs are inherently contradictory to yours. You can't both have had your eyes opened, one of your must be wrong. How do you know you are not wrong and everyone else is?

To know something doesn't mean what you know is actually the case. You could be a brain in a jar prodded into knowing what you know by an alien.

Knowing is provisional, ultimately.

Leaving aside those concerns, knowing is a function of 'personal satisfaction'.

That is to say, a person assigns knowledge-value to the various ways in which they observe themselves and their interaction with the world.

They notice their interaction with the empirical environment, e.g. cause and effect. They notice they can make errors and notice others like them make errors. The knowledge-value assigned to their empirical observations is tempered by their propensity to err.

They notice though, that combining notes with others reduces the level of error. And so, by this method knowledge-value (or their sense of satisfaction) increases compared to their going it alone.

Ditto their reasoning self and the systems that hone and build upon the individuals capability in that regard.

Hone and build upon ...
in the individuals opinion that is. Others views might inform and support his opinion, adding more conviction that he is right - if he finds it satisfactory to take others views into account. But he is the ultimate assessor regarding the worth of these developments. If he is satisfied that what they produce is something he considers iron-clad, then he calls that something 'knowledge'.

The fact remains however: he is the judge of what he is prepared to accept as knowledge. There can be no other way than self-satisfaction .. the individual as arbitrator. There is no higher judge than that.

It doesn't matter whether you know empiricism is true (or feel more convinced by it than any alternative) or whether God is true. It is the individual who observes his interaction with his environment and assesses the place and worth of the information he receives from it.

Now you will probably say that we can err. Which means I can err. So where are the checks? What system do I deploy, just as Science is deployed, to offset personal error.

The observation "I err" is a personal one. That I decide I err is the motivation to seek a remedy to error.

But if I don't make that observation about myself (because nothing happens to cause me to observe self-error) then there is no need to refer to an external checking system.

This is not to say that I think my theology is without error. I don't have a developed view on infants and the matter of 'own choice in salvation' question, for example. And up to relatively recently I thought God instructed genocide-like war. Now, I think that view an error.

But that's a different class of problem to the one of knowing God (of the Bible) exists as described therein (meek, gentle, love).

Regarding that latter, I know he exists because every means I have of observing my environment (which include the empirical, reasoned and spiritual) points overwhelmingly to that conclusion.

Does that mean my knowing can't be wrong? Of course not - I could be a brain in a jar. But such concerns are pointless, I halt at "I know."

Just as empiricism and rationality presumably strike you so is it for me regarding God's existence: what makes the most sense, is most coherent, provides most predictabilty gets the tag "I know".

It satisfies me the most - especially because the existence of others contradictory knowledge can be explained within the framework of what I know.

I know why you stop at empiricism and reason: it's the limit of the environment you operate in, so you hold to it because that makes most sense to you. I know why there are so many gods (and have pointed out their common feature and source elsewhere).

There is nothing external to my view which can't be explained ( to my satisfaction) within my view.

And self-satisfaction is the root of all knowledge.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

I could ask you the same question.

As a matter of fact, yes, I do sometimes - when the occasion permits, as the company and wine allow, so too does the tone rise to meet the challenge.

Anyway, I've answered you - can you answer me? Do you speak in real-life as you do here?

I can't help but notice that the absent-minded, hand-wavey tone which you used a few years ago still allowed you at the time to answer the odd question. But in more recent months, the ghost of occasionally clear thoughts and comments of times past has departed, leaving waffle of the highest order, devoid of any discernible meaning, purpose or value.

I would speak like this when the occasion and company permit. Add wine and things tend to simplify down.

Lest you suggest hooking up to a wine drip: it is the case that complex problems require complex answers. And in written word that creates difficulties.

Suffice to say however, I'm not prepared to respond with an "oh no he isn't" when dealing with similar level claims to the contrary (on the matter of an onlookers supposed impartiality in this instance).

The simple remedy, if its all too much for you or not to your liking is to scroll on by. If that's not stating the too obvious?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

The simple remedy, if its all too much for you or not to your liking is to scroll on by. If that's not stating the too obvious?

Well, as the forum charter says, A+A is a discussion forum and like a few people have pointed out, including one of your friendly forum moderators, you've yet to raise your posts to the standard of actual discussion.

We'll keep an eye on how this goes, but honestly, it's going nowhere at the moment.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

The simple remedy, if its all too much for you or not to your liking is to scroll on by. If that's not stating the too obvious?

Well, as the forum charter says, A+A is a discussion forum and like a few people have pointed out, including one of your friendly forum moderators, you've yet to raise your posts to the standard of actual discussion.

We'll keep an eye on how this goes, but honestly, it's going nowhere at the moment.

Hmmm.

In that case it would seem best to go bite sized steps.

The first issue to resolve is whether any hypothetical at all can be engaged with. That is, by adding the word 'hypothetical' to nonsense, the nonsense can be engaged with as if it isn't nonsense.

What's your view? I'm not so much focusing on whether this particular hypothetical is a valid one. I'm looking first at the general position.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

The first issue to resolve is whether any hypothetical at all can be engaged with. That is, by adding the word 'hypothetical' to nonsense, the nonsense can be engaged with as if it isn't nonsense.

Of course it can. How else do you think an atheist could converse with a theist about the notion of a God or gods?

antiskeptic

Note to posters.

Robindch has pronounced his overarching view on my posting. Whilst I wouldn't at all agree, when in Rome you must pay heed to the Romans.

I would acknowledge that multi-focus on multi-issues makes for unwieldy posts, a discussion forum problem generally.

There is the prospect of thread being pulled because I'm not discussing in the manner deemed appropriate. The fix is to go bite-sized and progress a little at a time.

My post to robindch above thus.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

The first issue to resolve is whether any hypothetical at all can be engaged with. That is, by adding the word 'hypothetical' to nonsense, the nonsense can be engaged with as if it isn't nonsense.

Of course it can. How else do you think an atheist could converse with a theist about the notion of a God or gods?

☺

An opportune time to mention that I won't respond to posts off the bite sized topic in question.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

☺

An opportune time to mention that I won't respond to posts off the bite sized topic in question.

With respect antiskeptic, I cannot help but wonder what you will respond to.
I am genuinely interested in hearing/learning/ understanding (even with-in the limits of my world view - not a lot I can do about those) about your worldview. I find it is possible to understand other people's views/beliefs without agreeing with them but in order to even attempt to do that there has to be some actual discussion which contains actual information.



Among your lengthy posts are hidden nuggets of your beliefs, but when people try and find out why you believe what you believe (i.e the theological basis) which is often not 'mainstream' or shared by others who call themselves Christian it all gets wordy nothinghood.


It took me a long time to understand Calvin, I could even see why he believed what he believed as he provided a thorough theological roadmap I could follow. I do not agree with Calvin as we differ in the core principle of considering the Bible as the word of God but I could read what he read and think yes, I see how Calvin came to that conclusion based on the texts.
Same with Luther. Same with Knox. Same with Zwingli. Same with the Anabaptists. I would like to do the same with antiskeptic as I am interested.

antiskeptic

@ Bannsside.

Firstly my apols at the ad hom. Not so much because it was an ad hom (which can technically be avoided by ridiculing a poster by ridiculing his post) but because it cast asparagus on your integrity as a mod.

The intention was to point out this isn't a thread for me addressing athiests, its a thread for addressing an impartial onlooker.

I have no problem presenting or arguing my theology - Calvinism, for example, can be dismantled (or neutralised) biblically without needing to hold the Bible to be the word of God. It can be done internally, within the Bible even if considering the Bible a fiction.

But here isn't the place.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

An opportune time to mention that I won't respond to posts off the bite sized topic in question.

I would have thought it was entirely on-topic. Your previous post asked whether adding the word hypothetical to something that we otherwise might consider nonsense stopped that thing being nonsense. The answer is yes, we use the word hypothetical for precisely this purpose as it demands suspension of disbelief. It essentially provides a mechanism to bridge the gap in a discussion between two incompatible points of view. From the Cambridge dictionary "hypothetical: imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true"

So for example, many atheists such as myself consider the notion of a god or gods existing as nonsensical but we have no problem dealing with the hypothetical scenario that they exist for the purpose of discussion. It is worth remembering here that what is or is not nonsense is largely subjective until proven otherwise.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

@ Bannsside.

Firstly my apols at the ad hom. Not so much because it was an ad hom (which can technically be avoided by ridiculing a poster by ridiculing his post) but because it cast asparagus on your integrity as a mod.

The intention was to point out this isn't a thread for me addressing athiests, its a thread for addressing an impartial onlooker.

I have no problem presenting or arguing my theology - Calvinism, for example, can be dismantled (or neutralised) biblically without needing to hold the Bible to be the word of God. It can be done internally, within the Bible even if considering the Bible a fiction.

But here isn't the place.

You are the only other person I have ever met who uses the expression "casting asparagus" - I get strange looks when I say that.



I do try my level best to be impartial - I have to be as for a long time it was my job to explain the twists and turns of the Reformation to groups of people who could (and did) fall into the various 'camps' and none. So I would have to impartially explain what Calvin/Luther/Rome etc believed without my personal beliefs playing any role because what I believe was/is completely irrelevant and were I to allow my beliefs bring any bias into the discussion it would be highly unprofessional. There was also the fact that I would be talking to people who might share those beliefs and that is their right so I have no place saying I disagree with this. Not my role. My role is saying this person believes xxxx and these are the reasons they gave for holding this belief but this other person believes yyyy and these are the reason they give.



Among those who 'trained' me was a world expert on Catholic iconography who was a devout Lutheran. We didn't find that out until her funeral as she was a complete professional. Another was a strict Presbyterian in his personal life but when he taught on the conflict between High and Low Anglicanism in the Victorian period never a hint of his personal beliefs was evident. That is the standard I set myself.



In fact, I have no idea what - if any - are the religious beliefs of my colleagues nor they mine as it has no place in our work. But we all lecture on religion and the impact of the various ones on world history from the rise of Christianity to the Muslim expansion to the Inquisition to the Reformation to the Wars of Religion and to do that we each need to understand the motivations of the people involved in those events. Not judge. Not agree/disagree. Understand.

.......

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have no problem presenting or arguing my theology .....
But here isn't the place.

So if you were never going to answer the question asked of you in the opening post - why waste pages and pages on word salad?

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

But here isn't the place.

On the contrary, here is precisely the place for an honest debate, which the rules in the other place prevent.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are the only other person I have ever met who uses the expression "casting asparagus" - I get strange looks when I say that.

What an excellent phrase - I intend to use it as soon as I can

nozzferrahhtoo

Up there with the Devils Avocado which I stole from Stephen Fry and continue to use whenever I can.

My new mission therefore is to find a place where I can coherently and meaningfully write the sentence "Stop casting asparagus at the devils avocado".

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would acknowledge that multi-focus on multi-issues makes for unwieldy posts, a discussion forum problem generally. [...] The fix is to go bite-sized and progress a little at a time.

The solution to staying put or moving backwards, when one wishes to move forward, is not to move more slowly, but to move forward. It's a matter of direction, not speed.

Bannasidhe

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Up there with the Devils Avocado which I stole from Stephen Fry and continue to use whenever I can.

My new mission therefore is to find a place where I can coherently and meaningfully write the sentence "Stop casting asparagus at the devils avocado".

Casting Asparagus at The Devil's Avocado could be the next Dan Brown pot boiler about an expert in Christian iconography who teams up with a market gardener to solve the mystery of the Illuminati's subversion of Western diets to bring about the Apocalypse.

nozzferrahhtoo

Food for thought I guess (ba-dum-tish).

Actually I read once that extras in movies are sometimes thought to look like they are deep in conversation by saying the word "rhubarb" over and over. Apparently it moves the mouth in a diverse enough way as to look like random conversation. In your proposed film I will demand EVERY extra must do that.

Bannasidhe

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Food for thought I guess (ba-dum-tish).

Actually I read once that extras in movies are sometimes thought to look like they are deep in conversation by saying the word "rhubarb" over and over. Apparently it moves the mouth in a diverse enough way as to look like random conversation. In your proposed film I will demand EVERY extra must do that.

Done - apart from in the obligatory gaggle of Cardinals scene when the word 'marmalade' will be used as it looks more serious.

Cabaal

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Food for thought I guess (ba-dum-tish).

Actually I read once that extras in movies are sometimes thought to look like they are deep in conversation by saying the word "rhubarb" over and over. Apparently it moves the mouth in a diverse enough way as to look like random conversation. In your proposed film I will demand EVERY extra must do that.

Oh it works....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOwS9bK_Eo

antiskeptic

....... wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have no problem presenting or arguing my theology .....
But here isn't the place.

So if you were never going to answer the question asked of you in the opening post - why waste pages and pages on word salad?

The reason why this isn't the place arose almost instantaneously at the start of the thread: the impossibility of producing an impartial onlooker.

Maybe you haven't read from the start preferring ... I mean your argument preferring to jump right on in without any reference to the position you face.

Post in haste..

Quite how some of your thankees, who have ostensibly followed the thread conclude as you do is beyond me.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

The reason why this isn't the place arose almost instantaneously at the start of the thread: the impossibility of producing an impartial onlooker.

Maybe you haven't read from the start preferring ... I mean your argument preferring to jump right on in without any reference to the position you face.

Post in haste..

Quite how some of your thankees, who have ostensibly followed the thread conclude as you do is beyond me.

So where is the right place exactly? Somewhere far from the critical eye and the difficult questions, the pulpit perhaps?

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

But here isn't the place.

On the contrary, here is precisely the place for an honest debate, which the rules in the other place prevent.

I don't anything honest about loading the impartial observer with characteristics suited to a particular worldview.

Or anything logical about persisting with the view that an onlooker loaded with characteristics suitable to understand my worldview can't be impartial.

No one seems capable of aďdressing the problem posed by the options available. They just insist 'hypothetical' resolves everything.


A hypothetical needn't be possible. But it can't be a nonsense. And the OP turns out to be a nonsense hypothetical.

nozzferrahhtoo

Given our mutual endurance for long winded walls of text, which would likely destroy this thread in a matter of minutes let alone hours..... I would like to drop in a random question to which.... whatever your reply...... I promise not to respond.

But in the spirit of the thread, and it's original intention.... could you adumbrate the attributes of the most impartial observer you could conceive of and be comfortable with.... one that might further the contents of the thread in a meaningful way? Given that you feel such an observer is not possible, could you describe the MOST impartial one you could think possible?

Because as an observer who has thus far refused to engage.... if I summed up and distilled the entire thread to date into everything I have managed to take from it.... the sentence "With respect antiskeptic, I cannot help but wonder what you will respond to." is literally it. I read that sentence and I quite literally heard meat loaf singing in the back of my head "You took the words right out of my mouth".... though the typer of those words will be relieved it stopped there and the second line did not play

And whatever your intention is for engaging with this thread, and whatever your hope is to look back on it.... I really doubt that is it.

Yet for THIS observer.... that is what it is and has been. And I somewhat fear that is all it will turn out to be. I kinda find myself wondering if there was an antiskeptic that was atheist but just on the cusp of theism..... and vice versa..... what would the two of them talk about. And if one of them asked who should order first....... how many words they could each employ to dodge responsibility.... and maybe even reconsider the plausibility of anyone worth ordering from

antiskeptic

smacl wrote:

So where is the right place exactly? Somewhere far from the critical eye and the difficult questions, the pulpit perhaps?

A critical eye and difficult questions has seen a lot of fluff regarding the failure of the hypo to turn up. All seems to rest on a hypothetical resolving a nonsense (which is different than resolving the non-possible or the highly unlikely it was intended to resolve). Which it can't of course.

I've little interest in flogging dead horses - all that tedious talk of precisely which year which gospel was written? Yawn. That apologetic tack plays to the empiricist and is doomed to failure of itself in my view.

And so my tack is as always: stalemating and talking about God along the way. The stalemate achieves one aim: reduction, for those who realise they are stalemated, in certainty about own worldview. An example is this thread. Much reliance has been placed on the impartial onlooker. And he can't be produced.

What does that say about the partial onlooker? The athiest who supposed himself able to soberly and objectively assess according to the processes of empirical and rational evalation finds he's partial. He isn't the impartial onlooker - for such a thing is a nonsense.

You might still be certain in your worldview. But the basis for it isn't as real as once thought. You're not impartial.


The talking about God achieves another aim. The person hears about God and his gospel. He hears about:

- a God who isn't Catholic (still a feature through previous weight of RC church in Ireland)

- a God who doesn't save based in your behaviour (the kind of tinted spectacles very commonly heard around here. Catholicism hasn't washed out at all at all)

- a God who didn't instruct Israelites to slaugher and rape.

- a God who loves you in the same kind of way that you love your child (if you have any and the almost maddening love for them people can be blessed was 'switched on' in you). His love is just dialled up to God-sized - but it has the same flavour for him as ours has for our kids.

Lastly and most importantly, the gospel (in a spiritual, not strictly empirical or reasoned sense) is the power of God unto salvation. It does its own work, unbeknownst to the recipient. Folk have been converted whilst reading a verse in the Bible - much to their surprise. Eyes can open, as Tommy Cooper used to say, "jis like that"

You might consider my discussing God here (and over the road) as something of a Trojan Horse. Knock yourself out against the horse all you like - the point is, the horse is in your city
☺

nozzferrahhtoo

I have a general question which seems to fit the thread but I do not want to direct at anyone in particular.

As many of you know I have impinged myself on many forums over the years. This one. City data. God is not great. the aussie atheists. Why doesnt god heal amutees. Is god imaginary. atheist.ie. I could list maybe 100 more.

One issue I hit with time and time again is the one of people saying "well how the hell do you define "god" anyway" and conversation tends to break down over time when that happens.

So over 26ish years of posting, from way back in the days of usenet and bulletin boards...... I have tried to evolve and refine a definition of "god" that offends or triggers the least amount of people, or more specifically is the LEAST inclined to derail the thread into a pedantic linguistic debate (though I realise the irony here is me ASKING this is the most likely move to turn the thread into a pointless linguistic debate but..... well the thread was kinda lost anyway wasnt it).

So now when I ask for evidence of "god" from a theist the evolved, refined, contrived, malicious, generous, general, workable, useful definition of the word "god"I work with is below. Can you guys improve it? Whether you be atheist or theist. Remembering the goal is not to please YOU but in general the most amount of deists, theists, atheists you might encounter.

I must note before I give it that the ONLY definition of "god" that is ACTUALLY important in a debate of the existence of a god is the one coming from the person who claims a god exists. I provide this definition ONLY for when a theist does not provide theirs.

.....

A non-human intelligent intentional agent responsible for the creation of.... and or the ongoing maintenance of....... our universe as a whole and everything within it.

Again as above I promise not to respond to any replies to this post. Given my tendency for walls of text. I will just observe replies with interest. Which is how I have decided to treat this thread in general

The reason I added "as a whole" to that though would amuse many. I added it because the person who objected to it pointed to the cleaner in my company who happened to be swiping down spider webs at the time.... and suggested she was maintaining the universe. I still love him for that.

robindch

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have a general question which seems to fit the thread [...]

Huic rogationi responsum mirum detexi - sed hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet.

nozzferrahhtoo

Rigatoni. Hmmmm.

Yea ok. My bad.

smacl

Once you accept God is pretty much whatever the specific theist believes in, it can mean pretty much anything. Once you consider polytheistic religions with demigods the lines quickly get blurred. Throw in ancestor worship and religions that lack a god and things get properly confused. Pretty much any supernatural being that is an object of worship fits the bill. Then for an extra spanner in the works you have the pantheists which consider god to be everything. So not really that meaningful a term without specific context.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Given our mutual endurance for long winded walls of text, which would likely destroy this thread in a matter of minutes let alone hours.....

To think that your post and this reponse would form a couple of minutes conversation if face to face. Forums are probably more suited to finding out how to wire a plug.

I would like to drop in a random question to which.... whatever your reply...... I promise not to respond.

No need to fulfill that promise from my perspective. Whatever suits you.

But in the spirit of the thread, and it's original intention....

We might have different views on what the spirit of the thread was.

On the face of it, it was a vehicle to raise objections to my worldview (i.e. I know God exists). Once the complete case for that worldview was laid down. Which is fine - raising objections and potentially having them overcome is how people figure to move position on things. I employ that method myself.

From my perspective however, these valid objections (e.g. so many gods, how do you know your one is the true one?) would be raised in the same currency as always - the demand for empirical evidence. It's not that I haven't been round the block in this area of debate.

The suggestion of the impartial onlooker raised the prospect, for me, to do something other than the same old.

I entered the thread already having raised the problem of the 'impossible impartial onlooker' with the OP in the parent thread .. and continued in that vein.

The spirit (the spirit I entered with) hasn't altered and I've neither deceived or misled anyone along the way.

-

I entered the thread for the kinds of reasons outlined in a post to smacl upstream of this one. The drive to stalemate (for I don't think any side of the God debate can score a victory on any significant point) is part of that, suitable as it is for a debate approach.

Granted, there are the oblique motivations, as mentioned to smacl, but they don't get in the way of the debate element.

could you adumbrate the attributes of the most impartial observer you could conceive of and be comfortable with.... one that might further the contents of the thread in a meaningful way? Given that you feel such an observer is not possible, could you describe the MOST impartial one you could think possible?

That one I already know. One of my best friends. He's a buddhist: spiritual to the extent that he's certain there is more to life than the naturalistic atheist considers there to be. That makes him interested and open to talking about subjects involving the deeper aspects of a person: spirit, psychology, emotion.

He's a good listener, sensitive and gracious.

He's a mechanical engineer like me - which means he joins the mechanistic dots (a theology or psychology lend themselves to mechanistic analysis and analogy) and can leap along knowing what's a central component in the mechanism and whats a trivial one. This avoids getting bogged down and sidetracked by the details.

But as soon as the talk turns to sin. And especially man infected with it, such that it bend man towards a propensity to do evil, his gracious countenance darkens, he interrupts, his ability to join dots evaporates. The shutters, literally, come down. And the conversation is moved on to other things. He sees man as intrinsically good.

He is lost and for all his spirituality, blind. So his reponse is completely expected.

Zero chance of progress then, in a direct, spirit of the thread way, on an anonymous discussion forum I'm afraid.

Lost vs. found. Blind vs. see. Under the sway and rule of the wicked one vs. Son of God. Utter darkness vs radiant light. Good vs evil

My worldview doesn't involve analogue, such as to approach, if not achieve, an impartial observer.

It's digital. Either 1 or 0 with nothing in between. And so I don't try.

Because as an observer who has thus far refused to engage.... if I summed up and distilled the entire thread to date into everything I have managed to take from it.... the sentence "With respect antiskeptic, I cannot help but wonder what you will respond to." is literally it. I read that sentence and I quite literally heard meat loaf singing in the back of my head "You took the words right out of my mouth".... though the typer of those words will be relieved it stopped there and the second line did not play

☺ Hopefully you will find this reponse illuminating. If you know that the problem was already known to the OP and that I'm quite content to drive to stalemate then my approach might make sense?

Yet for THIS observer.... that is what it is and has been. And I somewhat fear that is all it will turn out to be. I kinda find myself wondering if there was an antiskeptic that was atheist but just on the cusp of theism..... and vice versa..... what would the two of them talk about. And if one of them asked who should order first....... how many words they could each employ to dodge responsibility.... and maybe even reconsider the plausibility of anyone worth ordering from

☺