Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker.

Fourier wrote: »

I don't think there is such a thing as an impartial onlooker within a strictly scientific viewpoint, for largely technical reasons.

I don't think there's such a thing as an impartial onlooker within a strictly Christian viewpoint. The technical reason being spiritual blindness.

Hence the introduction, by the OP, of the hypothetical impartial onlooker (HIO). Which is beset by problems

However you still haven't really said anything. Even within the thread's purview can you just state what your position is directly?

If only it were so simple.


The OP asks to justify worldviews. Justification involves both the issuer of the argument and the recipient of the argument. Clearly if the recipient had empiricist leanings, they would evaluate the justification according to the norms of empirical evaluation: when the gospels were written, the history of religion, a technical analysis of the scriptures .. and would conclude the probability of the Christian message being true, as low.

The point of the HIO was to circumvent this obvious problem. The HIO wouldn't be an empiricist or a theist (the two worldviews chosen to highlight the problem). They wouldn't have a worldview to tint their spectacles.


The problem is the (unacknowledged by the OP) attributes of this HIO. Clearly any evaluator must have a sufficient degree of "eyes to see" in order to get to grips with any particular justification. A person who had no experience of the empirical world, for instance (earlier exampled as "deaf/dumb and lying in a coma in a hospital bed from birth) couldn't begin to get to grips with the empiricists justification.

Once you start adding necessary attributes, you bog down in problems. Simply backtracking and saying "it's hypothetical, it doesn't need to be possible" and ignoring the necessity for attributes, well ... you're gone with the wind.

Folk initially attempted to impartialize the HIO by assigning it attributes. They would have all the attributes a normal person has except they've been brought up in an environment which doesn't preform a worldview in them

In doing this, those folk have acknowledged the need for certain attributes (empirical experience but no empiricist worldview, so as to be able to impartially assess empiricism). They are at sixes and sevens when it comes to the problem of equipping the HIO with attributes suitable to assessing the Christian message though.

Then the language reverts to "it's a hypothetical". They can't be specific anymore.

A simple request for clarity was instead inverted back at me for me to offer a solution. You've been talking for several pages, maybe you can just clearly state your thesis with regard to the thread title and no meta-discussions about the course of the thread.

The "simple request for clarity" merely sidesteps the problem presented by the OP. Remember where I said:

antiskeptic wrote:

This is evidenced by the way in which folk want to skip past the empirical (and not so impartial) onlooker and 'get on with it'

You seem to want to just "get on with it"

If the thread had been entitled: "Justify the Christian worldview before an audience of partial onlookers" I wouldn't have bothered partaking. Been there, done that.

Fourier wrote: »

This is unrelated to what I'm asking.

As I said "in relation to the thread title" what is your position, i.e. can you state clearly your contentions with having an impartial observer or given that there isn't what issues does this cause.

My issue with an impartial observer is that one can't exist. Not in actuality, not hypothetically.

The issue arising from that is that the thread (under the direction set by the OP) can't take off (since it relies on the potential for an impartial onlooker)

The issue arising from not having an impartial onlooker is that if presenting a case, I would be presenting it to partial onlookers. Partial see things through a particular lens and wouldn't see the case presented.

Why present a case folk can't see? I don't see the point.

This is simple enough to answer. I want to "get on with it" in the sense that you've never clearly stated your thesis regarding the non-existence of an impartial observer or exactly what an empirically minded observer might be missing or how they might overcome this (if they can).

I have stated my "thesis regarding the non-possibility of the existence of an impartial onlooker in part. In my last post to you. The onlooker requires characteristics which allow him to appreciate each case made. A simple example of this is that he speak English (if the presenter presents in English).

Straightforward enough in the case of the empiricist presenting his case. It wouldn't be too difficult to produce someone (in reality or hypothetically) with experience and appreciation of the empirical world. They might not be an empiricist but their eyes are open to the empirical so as to understand the argument the empiricist makes.

They could conceivably be impartial.

The Christian worldview divides folk into two camps: lost vs found / blind vs can see. The former, if posited as an impartial onlooker, might even be theistic, but if they are lost they won't and don't have an appreciation or experience of the territory of God. They have no eyes to understand what the Christian is talking about, being as blind as the empiricist is, for all their theism

And if a person does have eyes to see, they can't be impartial - since what eyes that see see, is God.

-

What is missing is sight. There is only one way to overcome this kind of sightlessness and that is see. There aren't any workarounds (that I could conceive of)

Fourier wrote: »

So in essence there are those who are "blind" as it were, that prevents them from "seeing" the truth.

The "truth" is a bit of a loaded word. It implies that those who are equipped to see*, only see truth.

What they see, in fact, is equivalent to what someone sees through their physical eyes: an environment that has to be navigated, investigated and understood. One in which observational error and wrong connections can be made. Realising personal error is possible, see-ers develop the equivalent of scientific theories (theologies) which are more rigorous than each going it alone. Those theologies are tested as to whether they fit the overall scriptures and the better they do so, the more established they become. But just as scientific theories, they aren't considered "true", just closest approaches to truth at this time. And subject to being thrown overboard if necessary.


This is one of reasons why there are so many viewpoints regarding the environment of God: you have these larger theories, you have people like me who agree with central elements of these theories but who navigate around in the detail. And you have folk who do solo runs altogether, combining a complete mish mash which doesn't appear to hold up to any examination at all.


But for all the navigating and erroneous conclusions made about the God-environment, those that see, do see God. They now know he exists, like we know the environment around us we can see with our physical eyes, exists. It's just that that environment is very big, bigger than the physical environment - and so navigational error to be expected.



* 'see' is defined as the sight obtained through the process of being 'born again' of God (i.e. God instigated action). Whether the seeing person is a Christian or a Muslim or anything else is irrelevant. Not all people who identify as Christians are born again, they remain blind until such time as they are born again, if that is ever to occur to them

A Christian case cannot even get off the ground because they lack the mental or spiritual faculties to appreciate the points being made or to view facts in the correct light. Is this correct?

Spiritual faculties primarily and not so much about facts.

A person can read the verse Jonathan Edwards was reading, whereupon his conversion, until they are blue in the face. They can intellectually understand what the verse is saying and, if non-seeing theists, might intellectually hold the verse to be stating facts (eternal, immortal, etc).

But they (probably) won't experience this:

“The first instance that I remember of that sort of inward, sweet delight in God and divine things that I have lived much in since, was on reading those words,

“Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever, Amen.” (1 Timothy 1:17)

“As I read the words, there came into my soul, and was as it were diffused through it, a sense of the glory of the Divine Being; a new sense, quite different from any thing I ever experienced before.

That Jonathan was the son of a preacher man and was conversant with the gospel is neither here nor there. Prior to conversion he was lost and blind. Then the light went on.


That said: blindness does appear to affect the intellect also ("blinded the minds of those who don't believe" as the bible puts it). Richard Dawkins, for example, can't be said to be unintelligent. Yet his understanding of the mechanism of the gospel (which can be described in mechanical terms, the various parts open to view so as to see how the whole works) is so ludicrously infantile as to beggar belief. It's as if his intellect cannot sit on it's "God-hating" hands long enough to consider the whole.

Secondly what is the intended meaning of empiricist? One who only considers facts registered via the bodily senses or extensions of them in the form of experimental equipment tied together via mental models?

It's a loose term, since folk are unlikely to be purist and likely to be a mix of all sorts. Empiricism, rationalism, logic and any other philosophical -ism or the-ism that might contribute to a persons worldview.

Everything, bar born again, of God, seeing.

But here in A&A more empiricism and rationalism than anything else. Oh, and a fair dose of emotion

Fourier wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a loose term, since folk are unlikely to be purist and likely to be a mix of all sorts. Empiricism, rationalism, logic and any other philosophical -ism or the-ism that might contribute to a persons worldview.

Everything, bar born again, of God, seeing.

But here in A&A more empiricism and rationalism than anything else. Oh, and a fair dose of emotion

Empiricism and rationalism aren't the same though so lumping them together is ripe for confusion. In fact certain extreme forms of rationalism are opposed to empiricism. Best to use Non-Born Again or similar.

Considering it is possible for others to lack this sight and considering your Buddhist friend how do you know it isn't the case that you lack the sight from the Buddha nature to see the truth he is speaking.

I'm not saying they are the same. Folk, as I say, seem to mingle philosophies. Suffice to say that when the demand for justification for my position commences with 'where is the empirical evidence' and appears closed to discussion that doesn't revolve about it, then I figure I'm dealing with that part of a person which aligns with empiricism.

That they may also pick and choose from the menu of Rationalism (not necessarily understanding the conflict that the philosophers recognize) isn't really my problem.

Plenty of born again Christians hold to a "loving, peaceful God (Jesus)" whilst holding also to a "God of War (Old Testament Jehovah)". They don't necessarily wonder how the same God can display such contradicting characteristics. Rigour needn't be a believers strong suit, whatever their hue.

Regarding your other question? See post 242 in this thread.

It's not that Buddhism or other -isms don't contain truth. That truth may, from the Christian perspective, be an -ism seeing through a glass darkly, darkly enough to miss that it's God's truth in fact. Or there may be something more sinister involved: a good lie, as we all know, is one that sticks as closely as possible to the truth. A good example the fact that how you behave a.k.a. morality, has a central role in "born again" Christianity. The lie takes that central role and says that how you behave determines whether you are saved/go to heaven/are blessed by God, etc). This slightest of shifts see adherents of major religions attempt to work their way to salvation.

As I conclude: an evaluation, leading to a conclusion, of all the information at a persons disposal is something judged upon, ultimately, by the person themselves.

Which, if there is indeed a God, is how it ought to be. It shouldn't be that a person can offload their destiny (should it turn out to be a negative one) onto someone else. The heavenly courts wouldn't get through that legal quaqmire even if it had an eternity ☺

Fourier wrote: »

What contradiction?

I didn't say contradiction. I said conflict. I'm not familiar enough with the details anymore than the average atheist on here is familiar with the intricacies of the Calvinism vs Arminian debate, yet he knows there is conflict. (Indeed, he is wont to build enormous house-of-card like edifices on that not-quite-as-important-as-he-thinks fact.

The point is this can be inverted. How do you know that you lack a probably awakened mind and that your Christian truths are just Buddhist ones grasped dimly by an unenlightened mind?

This is a reframing of the same question you asked me the last time - whereupon I pointed you to post 242 in this thread. I couldn't link it on my phone but now I'm on a PC, here you go.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110423872&postcount=242


I'd ask you to glance at post 245 just below the one above. The aim is to establish whether or not the OP's hypothetical is a nonsense or not - given mod ability to pull the thread in a hearbeat for the reasons of waffle, in his view.

If you want to steer down a "how we know track" it might be prudent to get a mod-nod first.

smacl wrote: »

You use the term a God, that should be a god. The former is a proper noun, the latter isn't.

It was a typo.

The confusion between God, i.e. your God or the singular god referred to in monotheistic traditions, and a god, i.e. any god from any tradition, works in favour of suggesting your God is the only god.

If God is the only God and all the other gods are false gods, would God be the right term to use? Just asking.

I don't see the problem in suggesting my (and yours as it happens) God is the only God.

So for example another post here linked a paper that showed a significant number of atheists stopped being atheists after using psychedelic drugs. The paper then went on to ask "Can psychedelic drugs occasion genuine God encounter experiences?"

I could have thought of more mundane reasons why a person stops being an atheist after taking psychedelic drugs. That paper appears to be making the same leap of logic that "does prayer work?" experiments take.

I went through a phase of taking mushrooms (although I didn't have a God/god experience that I can recall). You do get a sense that our undrugged perceptions, whilst taken as the the "standard" guide to the limits of reality, are potentially limited.

Perhaps, that realisation of potential limitation opens a space for god (or God).

and later talked about "sudden religious conversion experiences that are well-described in the psychology of religion literature, with Paul’s experience of encountering Jesus on the road to Damascus as the prototype". The data however shows that those who stopped being atheist declared that they did not believe in any traditional monotheistic god, and a large proportion of previous monotheists also stopped believing in any traditional monotheistic god

You have the problem here (regarding previous monotheists) of whether these monotheists ever experienced God (assuming for a moment God exists and can be experienced. If they didn't then they were in the same boat (and somewhat predictably) reacting in the same way and for the same reasons, as atheists.

A repeat of the same error of logic that besets the aforementioned "does prayer work?" experiments

Mark Hamill wrote: »

An end to what though? Why do say this as if it is a good thing? Stalemates literally get discussions nowhere.

When you encounter an environment where folk assume they hold the high ground and you the low ground (empiricism rules okay), a stalemate achieves the state of nobody holding the high ground. It levels the playing field.

Which is, for the person assumed to hold the low ground by people who assume they occupy the high ground, something of a result.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why do you believe that reality should align to what satisfies you the most?

I'm not saying reality should align with what satisfies me most. I am not, for instance, satisfied that I am a brain in a jar prodded by an alien. But the reality could be that that's precisely what I am. Reality doesn't align with me. Reality is whatever it is.

What I am saying is: personal satisfaction that what I perceive is reality is the highest court in the land. I can look nowhere else to get more satisfaction.

I am also saying that this is true for everyone.

I do not believe in empiricism because it most self-satisfactory to me. It is, in part, because of the opposite - I do not believe that my satisfaction has any bearing on reality. Things are how they are regardless of whether I like them that way or not.

By satisfaction, I don't mean things I like. I also mean things I might not like. I am satisfied that I can be very arrogant, for example. If someone else tells me I am arrogant, it will only matter if I am satisfied that they are right.

I remain the highest court.

Empiricism is just the best way we have to explain things as it primarily tries to removes the ego when looking at why things are.

You appear satisfied that it is appropriate to remove the ego. You, the highest court. I'd drop the "we" bit since the value of "we" as opposed to "me" is something decided in your courtroom. It might be appropriate to do it at times. But it is you who is satisfied when it's appropriate.

I am not disagreeing with you, where you are satisfied it's appropriate to remove it. If you were not satisfied that empiricism was the best way to explain the reality you perceive, what would you do then?

Fourier wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

I didn't say contradiction. I said conflict.

What conflict? Usually when ideas conflict they contradict, so this doesn't really change anything. What's the conflict?

Two imperialists figthting to control a resource have no conflict of idea. They both think exactly the same thing. But conflict all the same.

Are you denying there is conflict between these ideas? If not and you just want to set me googling so as to improve on my basic understanding you might spare me and cut to the point you want to make.

I was aware of this. However it seems to basically reduce to you have an essentially magical non-externally confirmable insight that allows you to follow deductions those lacking the insight cannot.

My dads mathematical modelling of an engineering invention my 18 yr old self was attempting to add to my long suffering motorcycle appeared magical to me. He saw me struggling to figure out 3d workings with a full scale 2d drawing sketched out on back of a roll of wallpaper. So magical did his maths modelling appear to me that I went to college to become a mechancal engineer. I learned that although maths is 'magical', it's not magical.

Just because something appears magical to those who can't see (whether God or maths) it doesn't mean its actually magical.

As for external confirmation? You'll have read the piece I wrote on where external verification turns out, ultimately, to rest in internal satisfaction.

Not that I stand alone (in the event you are swayed by weight of numbers). Plenty of people see what I see. Millions of them it would appear.

Debate is impossible under such a claim, so why engage in it?[/

Debate is possible - I just find it tedious in the area where an attempt is made to prove God (or raise his standard to the top of a pile of unprovables.

I've pointed out the beneficial, from my perspective, of stalemating positions, for obvious and less obvious reasons. You can read back if you like.

For example, I am the chosen of Garesh, god of the outer gates of the sky. It's not possible to perceive this stark truth using empirical means. In fact your non-chosen nature means you may never perceive the intricate web of truth tying what appear to be disparate empirical facts with spiritual ones to point to this clear conclusion.

My poor dad did his uttermost best to coach me in maths when I was a failing (occasional) schoolgoer.

"Let's say a is equal 2 and b is equal to 3" ( I can still see us now at the kitchen table.)

This would result in a blank look and protests from me " but a is a as in a,b,c" I can remember the fog that would overtake my mind as soon as maths came up at that kitchen table. Impenetrable fog

When you're blind, what you can't see appears as ridiculous and as utterly fog filled as maths did to me or Son of Garesh appears to you.

You might one day become a seeker - when you find all your current ways don't give you answers to the questions (more likely problems) you have.

When you have a great need, you tend to be more open - as I was with my motorbike invention. Need prepared the way. My father opened my eyes to maths. I was born again mathemathically. And came to see. After becoming an A grade maths student in Uni I was distraught to find out there was to be no maths in my final year. I had come to understand it as the language of the universe, full of beauty and truth.

Blind / see are poles apart.

Taking what I am saying there seriously, this view is completely "closed". By it's nature it isn't really something compatible with discussion.

Yet we are discussing. You are attempting to paint one picture: edging things towards "if there is no externally verifiable proof then we are necessarily in flying teapot territory".

I, on the other hand, am attempting to pull things back down to earth (e.g. with my blind to maths example)

We will stalemate. But are debating our way there.

To demonstrate this, do you accept the Big Bang model of cosmology, just in the sense that the universe is at least 13.7 billion years old and is expanding (not that the universe came from an explosion which isn't part of the Big Bang model).

I see no problem with that model. I trust that 'eyes that can better assess the information than me' are assembling the evidence in the best manner possible. And that currently, that is the conclusion they come to.

You gotta admit it though: 'skeptics theological waffle is so waffely versatile.

Later.

smacl wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

You gotta admit it though: 'skeptics theological waffle is so waffely versatile.

Later.

Not so much. All I've read are expressions of your subjective faith. Plenty of volume but all the same waffle on close inspection. Not seeing any meat to put on my pizza here and I'm more of a pepperoni than pineapple kind of guy.

But all our faiths are subjective. You can suppose yours objective because the method which gives it legs says its objective (or more objective)

But its you deciding that the method provides objectivity. An 'objective' built in a subjective is a subjective.

It's a bit like multiplying an impressively big number by zero. It's not the impressive number being multiplied by zero that should draw our attention. No matter how elaborate the formula which priduces the number, no matter how elegant the dance of those who are pointing to it with awestruck faces.

It's the zero that counts. That inconvenient little truth to which your belief, like mine, is beholden.