6.19.2006

BB post. As William B. Efficacy of the senses/duck or rabbit


Initially the viewer, presuming she has 20-20 vision, will see either a duck or a rabbit. In either case she will be correct, since the drawing is done intentionally to represent both. Her eyes have done their job, by perceiving the physical attributes of the image accurately. If I see a duck, my brain immediately registers the image as a duck, and I will, out of habit, stop looking for any further revelation. Now, if I see a firetruck instead, or a cathode ray-tube, I can see how my sense of vision might be deemed deficient. If I don't know the presenter's reason for showing me the drawing, it's probably simply a matter of luck as to which image will register first: the duck or the rabbit.

In any random group of viewers, assuming they all have 20-20 vision, some will see a rabbit, some a duck. If the viewer knows what is afoot, then she applies her brain and her eyes accordingly, and will eventually, in most cases, make out both images. Bottom line, and this is the part which is hardest for me to put across since I am no good with technical language or terminology, is that, assuming the viewer has 20-20 vision, she will see the actual, concrete information on the page (or screen) correctly. The rest is a matter of how her brain interprets the information-- a matter of intelligence, imagination, disposition, experience, predilections, what have you.

To an illiterate person, written language is merely a random smattering of lines and curves and loops. In this case, it's not his sense of vision which is deficient. He's seeing the same thing the literate person sees. He merely lacks the acquired ability to interpret those lines and curves and loops into sounds and thereby into words and language. And it goes for any of us who are ignorant of a foreign language. If someone speaks Burmese to me, all I will hear are random utterances. As far as concerns strictly the sense of hearing, I am hearing the same sounds as the person who understands Burmese and is able to interpret those sounds properly.

If we pick a thousand people at random and point out a kitchen table to them, anyone with normal eyesight will identify the object as a table. I daresay you would have great difficulty finding someone with normal vision who will identify the object as a tree or a ladder. By and large, our perceptions of the external world are remarkably consistent. Simple communication would be next to impossible if this were not the case. Granted, many people have poor eyesight, poor hearing, in various degrees. Without my glasses I would not be able to drive, for example; but, thanks to man's determination and ingenuity, I am able to put on my glasses and see normally.

Anyone would agree that the senses are fallible, deficient, to various degrees, and even if a person has 20-20 vision, I will grant that he can and often will see objects incompletely, incorrectly; but I don't see how that needs to cast us into any genuine philosophical doubts about the reality of the external world, or the actuality of the objects we perceive, however inaccurately. The human race has been around for a long time: a short time in relation to the cosmos perhaps, but a long enough time, certainly, for us to collectively recognize that our perceptions and interpretations of the world around us are, as I said, remarkably consistent. Civilization, language, communication, art, science, philosophy, are entirely dependent upon, not to mention the result of, such consistency.

Unposted response. Egoism/altruism


My response to B**, who argued that it was moral to expect and receive payment in return for saving a drowning victim's life, and that anything less would constitute a concession to altruism:

As far as the drowner scenario goes for me personally, insisting on receiving payment for saving his life would eliminate the ego-gratifying benefits that saving his life for free conferred upon me, unless I was in a profession in which life-saving was literally a part of my job. In the first place, it would be an admission that a human life was not a thing of value worthy of being preserved for its own sake. I would be embarrassed and ashamed as a human being to ever make such an admission, and it would also be self-damning, since I would be admitting that my own life was not of sufficient value to merit being preserved for its own sake, which would be crushing to my ego and sense of self-worth. In the second place, by reducing the heroic act of saving a life to a mere transaction of goods and services, I am denying myself the honor that would be associated with saving a human life out of little more than an extremely high regard for the value of that life. In one fell swoop I would confess to having no regard for a human life beyond some arbitrary monetary value and simultaneously strip myself of any and all chance to feel that I had acted heroically and valorously.

In other words, the act of saving a human life should confer a great many personal benefits to the person doing the saving, not to gloss over, of course, the enormous benefit received by the person being saved. I agree with you insofar as I think it's plain wrong to stick to the old idea that the greatest act of goodwill or charity is one which entails the least amount of benefit to the doer. Even if such an ideal were possible, which I suppose it may be given an infinity of hypothetical scenarios, why should we strive for it? If in such a scenario the receiver of the act of goodwill or charity were no better off, what possible good can come of the doer depriving himself of all benefits? Seems to me if we can have two that benefit from one act at no greater cost to either party then that should be the most desireable outcome.

Lastly, if you honestly wouldn't save a life (assuming for the sake of argument that the drowner is neither a loved one nor someone you know of in any way that might prejudice your action) unless you were paid in some way, I'd venture to say there could be something missing in you. I would never suggest that you should feel morally compelled to risk your life to save a total stranger; but if the act of rescuing someone, assuming of course that you were able to do so without putting yourself at too great a risk, failed to give you any reward whatsoever simply for the sake of having acted heroically and preserving a thing of value due to your ability to act with courage, skill, and physical prowess, then I guess I never understood a thing about egoism.

6.18.2006

BB post. As "WilliamB". Epistemology/senses/presup


M*** wrote: Not so, I do not believe the pages themselves to hold power or proof reality. Once again a false assertion based primarily on your empericistic view.


If the Bible is your "axiom", as you state below, then presumably one must be able to read the Bible, hear it spoken aloud, or have its contents conveyed to them through signs given via the sense of touch, as in the way Helen Keller was taught. You are putting the cart before the horse. If you want to convince me that the Bible is the perfect word of God, as you say, I have to read (or have its contents conveyed to me through some other sense) the Bible in order to see if your claim is true, and in order to do that I need at least one working sense. If I cannot trust my senses, which is the main thrust of your argument, then how can I trust what I read with my eyes? Think of what you are proposing: you claim that the senses are untrustworthy, and simultaneously claim that the only thing we can trust is the word of God as put down in the Bible, which cannot be received and understood without the senses.

As someone else said, the presuppositionalist arguments are sometimes brilliantly presented, but this is not one of those occasions. At bottom you are defending an indefensible claim: that knowledge can only be received through revelation, not through empirical observation. Serial killers, the mentally ill, cult leaders, fraudulent televangelists, psychics, and presuppositionalists all make claims to receiving knowledge through some type of revelation. Revelation and delirium are synonymous.



M*** wrote: And once again, my questions are not aimed at proving the Bible. My questions are aimed at proving you cannot know something by means of empericism.


Look at what you're writing. Your aim is to prove that we cannot know something with the material we receive from the senses,and how do you propose to do this? I presume your proof will be in the form of words appearing on my computer screen, no? You intend to "prove" to us that we can't know something through the senses, by appealing to our senses, and by presupposing that our senses are working properly enough for us to read and understand your "proof". You cannot prove anything to us on this board without presupposing the efficacy of the senses and without also depending on the efficacy of our senses, let alone "prove" that one cannot know anything by means of empericism!

Let me put it another way: the only way for you to help your position is by withdrawing from the discussion now and not typing another word, because with each word you type you are taking things for granted: and those happen to be the very things you are trying to pooh-pooh through your magnanimous presence here.

And you're getting nowhere by tossing this "know" word around. With each and every word you type, you are entirely dependent on the fact that there will be someone on the other end who will "know" what those words mean. You seek to show us how little we can "know" by being one-hundred percent confident that we do, in fact, know something: you are confident that there will be someone out there who will "know" enough about the English language to make sense of what you're typing.

It's all utterly pointless anyway since your worldview demands that you grant the existence of an objective reality and grant that we can gain knowledge of this external world through our senses and through our capacity to reason. It so happens that my worldview accepts all that as well. What you need to do is demonstrate how the external world would be any less real to me than to you, and why my senses or my capacity to reason are less efficient than yours, simply because I lack belief in God. But then again, no, that isn't your intention. You already know that you and I are on relatively equal footing in regard to our senses and our capacity to make sense of the material we acquire through them. That isn't the problem for you.

The problem for you is that I do not recognize God as being responsible for my ability to adapt to my world and survive in it. What you need to do is demonstrate how your belief in Christian theology gives you a more rational epistemological foundation, which is what the presup argument is supposed to do but which presuppers never actually get around to doing. They talk about it a lot, but they never do it. No one has managed to be even remotely convincing when it comes to that. All we get are a bunch of pointless questions which are designed to undermine the reliability of the senses and of human reasoning, questions which depend entirely upon the reliable senses and reasoning ability of those being questioned!

It's sheer absurdity.



M*** wrote: The proof of reality lies within revelation, not empericism.


Like I said, mystics throughout the ages have made similar claims. So have serial killers, various cult leaders, psychics suckering people out of their money on television, unscrupulous evangelists, and all sorts of people occupying mental wards throughout the world. Yet not a single one of them could possibly give any "proof" of the veracity of their claims without appealing to the senses of the people they were trying to convince, or without relying on the capacity of those very same people to "know" what in blazes they were blathering on about.


M** wrote: You cannot prove revelation to be faulty.


Which means you cannot prove any "revelation", so-called, to be faulty. The Christians aren't the only ones who claim to receive knowledge via revelation, in case you haven't heard. Yeah, I know, those other revelations don't count. Of course, what was I thinking.


M** wrote: You cannot test it by your means of obtaining truth. I can however, prove empericism to be faulty by one's own testimony. You cannot define or explain how or why something is real without further adding to the list of questions as to how or why. My revelation of what is reality cannot be proven faulty and is not under obligation to verfiy itself by means of the senses. You could say, "but how do you know you have had revelation?". My response would then be, the revelation itself was verification of it's own validity. It doesn't matter if I can prove or show it, it is a revelation.


If I claim that I received a revelation only this morning, you would not be able to gainsay my claim by virtue of what you typed above. My claim is unassailable. And yet if I claim that I have a cup of coffee here beside me, this is something you can tear apart? You can claim to have "revelations" and yet are not required to give any evidence for it whatsoever. I'm to take your word for it, no questions asked. But if I claim that my feet are cold, I am making an unsupportable claim? What if I said that I had a revelation that my feet were cold? Would you find that more believable?

Your kind of thinking belongs in the Dark Ages.



M** wrote: ...belief in the Bible comes by revelation which cannot be found or proven faulty.


Pointless claim, the result of fantasy and the fear of death.



M** wrote: Did you come up with that one by means of the senses?


What do you mean by "Did"? What do you mean by "you"? What do you mean by "come"? What do you mean by "up"? What do you mean by "with"? What do you mean by "that"? What do you mean by "one"? What do you mean by "by"? What do you mean by "means"? What do you mean by "of"? What do you mean by "the"? What do you mean by "senses"? Please explain.

What's the difference between a banana?

BB post. As "WilliamB". On Satan as a state of mind/ego

So Satan doesn't exist as an actual being, it's more a state of mind in human beings? That's fine by me if you want to call it Satan, but usually when people deny the existence of Satan they are denying an entity, a "person" if you will, which is not just symbolic of evil but an actual, concrete, conscious, living being. So when an atheist says "Satan doesn't exist", s/he is merely denying the literal existence of that mythological entity, the same as one would deny the existence of unicorns, centaurs, or dragons. S/He is not denying the existence of evil or the potential for evil in human beings, or the concept of evil in the abstract sense; or any concept, for that matter, which s/he happens to associate with Satan.


j***** wrote: Satan = ego.

Okay, so the ego to you is altogether a bad thing? Would that be correct? Because if this is what you are saying then you happen to be wrong. Ego is, among other things, the recognition of the self as being distinct from others. There's a lot more to it than that. The following is a quote from Britannica Online, in reference to something called "strong ego":

A strong ego is exhibited in the following characteristics: objectivity in one's apprehension of the external world and in self-knowledge (insight); capacity to organize activities over longer time spans (allowing for the maintenance of schedules and plans); and the ability to follow resolves while choosing decisively among alternatives.

Do you object to any of the characteristics listed in the above quote? I certainly don't. The fact is, the ego is a necessary part of who we are. I'd even venture to say that it plays a major role in inspiring you to participate here. Anyone who struggles to survive has a good streak of ego running through their veins, whether they will admit to it or not. On a fundamental level the ego is simply the recognition of one's own right to exist.


***


To go back to the OP: Satan is a symbol for me as well, in the sense that he is a fictional character which is representative of human characteristics and not a real living being. Satan represents rebellion against tyranny and absolute power. In my obviously non-literal view, Satan doesn't want to become God, he wants to dethrone a tyrant. I think it's unjustified to regard opposition to absolute power as a desire for absolute power. One can oppose absolute power as a means of obtaining freedom for one's self and others. Sure, we're told that God is perfect and just in all things, and so while he has absolute power he couldn't possibly be corrupt in any way; but this simply doesn't follow from the Bible, at least not for me.

In order to think of the Biblical Jehovah as perfect and just, I'd have to abandon everything I've ever heard or understood about perfection or justice. A perfect being would not be jealous. A perfect being would not require eternal positive reinforcement from his creations, nor would he be compelled to demand it by intimidation or bloody displays of power. A perfect being would have no reason to repent of his own actions. A perfect entity would not create a race of beings only to allow each and every one of them to be born into corruption; he would not allow every infant ever conceived to be brought into the world in immediate need of forgiveness. Such a notion is a travesty of justice.

So naturally the Satan character, since he stands in adamant opposition to the Biblical God, seems virtuous, even heroic. He sacrifices his comfortable existence for an eternity of torment and pain, on principle. Christ endured pain and torment for a few hours, a single day, in order to save people from punishments they never deserved for wrongdoings they never committed. Satan endures pain and torment forever, in order to remind people that they have the right to exist and to seek happiness and meaning on their own terms.

Of course that's a highly romanticized view, and I don't believe Satan exists. I don't believe that the Biblical God exists either, but that isn't to say that I flatly deny the possibility of something existing which is God-like in nature. As inconsistent and mysterious as his appearances in the Bible are, in a lot of ways I agree with j***** that Satan represents the ego; it's just that I don't equate the ego with evil.


***


O Prince de l'exil, a qui l'on a fait tort,
Et qui, vaincu, toujours te redresses plus fort...


- Clarles Baudelaire


Note: The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels & God, and at liberty when of Devils & Hell, is because he was a true Poet and of the Devils party without knowing it.

- William Blake

BB post. As "Servetus"

777luvsme:

2 my understanding hell burns u not physically but ur soul burns endlessly! The torcher is not like anything on the planet a person mite experience..And its all repeticous and u'll bag 4 water and pray 2 the lord 4 4giveness but nothing will save u now!! sorry spell check wont show up


Does anyone here accept the possibility that a divine and perfect Being would want any part of the above quote? Can the sentiments voiced in that quote possibly speak for the magnificent Entity who created a universe of such inconceivable magnitude and beauty? Does that sloppy and mean-spirited mess of a post pay any respect at all to the gravity of what is under discussion? Does the absence of a spell-checker make it acceptable for a person to indulge in such laziness, such disrespect for language, when that very person is purportedly trying to reach the mind of someone who claims to be lost with what is obviously such a grave and serious message?

We are talking about the damnation of a human soul, a human life subjected to unspeakable pain for all of eternity, and yet we find it acceptable to discuss such a tragedy in this careless and juvenile fashion. Is it any wonder that atheists find it so easy to make a mockery of the concept of Hell and damnation when Christians themselves are not expected to treat the subject with the seriousness it deserves, when Christians can engage in any sort of wild and adolescent speculation, when they see fit to describe the unconscionable plight of the damned in terms which would scarcely be fitting even for a teen chat room?

So the spell-checker isn't available. There are countless dictionaries online that can help with spelling, at the touch of a finger. A few seconds of your time. Is that so much to ask of someone who wishes to offer a definition of Hell, the true knowledge of which, if there is even any to be had, any humble Christian ought to recognize is solely in God's possession?

But spelling mistakes, and language that is virtually incomprehensible, aren't the real problems, they are merely the most apparent indicators of what the problem really is. Everyone makes mistakes. I suspect there are probably quite a few in this post of mine. The problem I am refering to is the casual and flippant attitude on display in this entire thread. The notion of a human being, any human being, however desperately fallen, existing for infinity in a state of unimaginable grief and pain, is not a notion that ought to be taken lightly.

Look into your hearts for a moment. If you ever took any secret pleasure in the prospect of a human life being condemned to damnation, if you ever used the notion of Hell as an occasion to gloat over an intransigent pagan or atheist, if you ever felt that you would one day take even the smallest morsel of satisfaction in the knowledge that you were right and that some unfortunate so-and-so would thereby also know that you were right, let me inform you that these feelings come from the most corrupt and ungodly marrow of your bones and ought to be purged from within you with all due haste and humility.

If you ever speak of Hell or damnation with a smile and a light heart, ask yourself why you would stand on Christ's shoulders during the hour of his greatest pain.