Philosophy Now Forum

The only revelation I'd have after forty days in the wilderness is that of my mortality, which I'm already keenly aware of.

Immanuel Can wrote:

henry quirk wrote: Indeed! Care to pony some up? George Burns, perhaps, over coffee?

#
You've got coffee? Count me in.
So we choose what evidence we are prepared to see.

I like coffee too, and a cup with a half a shot of 'Creme De Cacao' works really well. More than that is just too sweet for me, but you suit yourself.

IC, I think you might like this clip,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwkgGPvClF4

My pastor says that he is an actor and is practiced at playing a part, but I don't quite see it that way.

Dalek Prime wrote:The only revelation I'd have after forty days in the wilderness is that of my mortality, which I'm already keenly aware of.

Perhaps you're closer than you think.

thedoc wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:The only revelation I'd have after forty days in the wilderness is that of my mortality, which I'm already keenly aware of.

Perhaps you're closer than you think.

We're always the last to know, Doc.

thedoc wrote:I like coffee too, and a cup with a half a shot of 'Creme De Cacao' works really well. More than that is just too sweet for me, but you suit yourself.

No, quite right. Coffee is meant to be straight and slightly bitter, and spiked judiciously if at all. But nothing rounds off an evening coffee like a small cognac.

IC, I think you might like this clip,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwkgGPvClF4

My pastor says that he is an actor and is practiced at playing a part, but I don't quite see it that way.

No, I agree with you...there's something there, something of the man himself. It's not the kind of sketch Atkinson would have done as a young man on "Not the Nine O'Clock News" or "Mr. Bean." It's the kind of sketch that takes a man in his late middle age to pull off.

I''ve frequently marvelled at how good some comedians are at doing dramatic roles. Think Robin Williams, Tom Hanks, Steve Martin...Paradoxically, it seems sometimes no one is more capable of seriousness than a comedian.

Thanks for pointing that out.

henry quirk wrote:Produce Him, please.

Well, several brands of theists say they have (or rather, God has produced "Him"self and left behind evidence of such). Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. That you don't find their evidence convincing is, they would say, not their fault. Just because Sen. James Inhofe produces a snowball on the Senate floor as a sign that the evidence for climate change is unconvincing, it does not mean that climate change is not real. The same goes for the atheist response to the theist's presentation of evidence.

In short, if you say "produce him" and the Christian points to the Bible, they've answered your challenge. It's now between you and God (or maybe not-God, if you happen to be right).

Dalek Prime wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:The only revelation I'd have after forty days in the wilderness is that of my mortality, which I'm already keenly aware of.

Perhaps you're closer than you think.

We're always the last to know, Doc.

Well in the end we'll either know, or we will not. Either an afterlife, where we should find out everything, or oblivion where we will know nothing. If it's oblivion, I would be disappointed, if I weren't oblivious to it all. I think I would prefer some kind of afterlife, and breakfast.

thedoc wrote: Well in the end we'll either know, or we will not. Either an afterlife, where we should find out everything, or oblivion where we will know nothing. If it's oblivion, I would be disappointed, if I weren't oblivious to it all. I think I would prefer some kind of afterlife, and breakfast.

Breakfast? At the end of the universe? Very expensive. Invest now.

Dalek Prime wrote:

thedoc wrote: Well in the end we'll either know, or we will not. Either an afterlife, where we should find out everything, or oblivion where we will know nothing. If it's oblivion, I would be disappointed, if I weren't oblivious to it all. I think I would prefer some kind of afterlife, and breakfast.

Breakfast? At the end of the universe? Very expensive. Invest now.

One penny is all it would need, from what I understand. I'll have a steak, rare.

Theist is a foxhole. In other words people scared shitless, cling to false hope. Not much or a recommendation for god or religion.

thedoc wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

thedoc wrote: Well in the end we'll either know, or we will not. Either an afterlife, where we should find out everything, or oblivion where we will know nothing. If it's oblivion, I would be disappointed, if I weren't oblivious to it all. I think I would prefer some kind of afterlife, and breakfast.

Breakfast? At the end of the universe? Very expensive. Invest now.

One penny is all it would need, from what I understand. I'll have a steak, rare.

One dollar invested in a high interest account now will render 4000 MegaDollars by the time your ship reaches the Restaurant at the End of the Universe. Sadly, due to hyper inflation your steak and coke costs 40,000MegaDollars.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Theist is a foxhole. In other words people scared shitless, cling to false hope. Not much or a recommendation for god or religion.

You've clearly never seen a Christian die.

I've seen many. I've also seen many Atheists and Agnostics do so. It's the Atheists that "Rage, Rage Against the Dying of the Light," as the poem says. They go kicking and screaming, or totally denying what's happening to them; very few indeed go with even the appearance of peace. I've seen that often too.

In contrast, my father, a Christian, is 90, and afflicted with advancing Parkinson's Disease...all the worst symptoms. It takes every ounce of effort he has just to live, and he can do almost nothing for himself. He's suffered all kinds of humiliations, and is in constant pain and exhaustion. Soon some crucial part of him will stop working, and he will die. There is no cure -- hardly even symptom relief.

Talks about a "Theist in a foxhole"...Yet he's got to be the most at-peace man I know.

In contrast, Robin Williams considered just the possibility, the prospect of that, and promptly killed himself.

Tell me, then, about the courage of the dying Atheist...

Immanuel Can wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Theist is a foxhole. In other words people scared shitless, cling to false hope. Not much or a recommendation for god or religion.

You've clearly never seen a Christian die.

I've seen many. I've also seen many Atheists and Agnostics do so. It's the Atheists that "Rage, Rage Against the Dying of the Light," as the poem says. They go kicking and screaming, or totally denying what's happening to them; very few indeed go with even the appearance of peace. I've seen that often too.

In contrast, my father, a Christian, is 90, and afflicted with advancing Parkinson's Disease...all the worst symptoms. It takes every ounce of effort he has just to live, and he can do almost nothing for himself. He's suffered all kinds of humiliations, and is in constant pain and exhaustion. Soon some crucial part of him will stop working, and he will die. There is no cure -- hardly even symptom relief.

Talks about a "Theist in a foxhole"...Yet he's got to be the most at-peace man I know.

In contrast, Robin Williams considered just the possibility, the prospect of that, and promptly killed himself.

Tell me, then, about the courage of the dying Atheist...

You don't half talk a lot of bullshit.

Mannie,

Yeah, if 'if there's anything to it is the crux of the matter', then 'evidence' is its root.

As I said elsewhere: if I smell smoke, touch the door and find it warm or hot, I can -- based on the evidence -- conclude a fire is behind that door. I could be wrong, but I'm probably right.

Is it wrong of me to want my god-evidence to be equally tangible?

I want to 'smell the smoke' and 'feel the warmth of the door'.

##

"40 days in the wilderness is a popular one"

I spent a year in the woods...got very hungry from time to time...never had a revelatory event.

Perhaps I was too busy lookin' for food to notice it.

##

"if you say "produce him" and the Christian points to the Bible, they've answered your challenge"

By their own reckoning, I guess they have, but not by mine. That would be the equivalent of me asking for fire and someone handing me a magazine with an article about fire...perhaps *informative about fire, but not 'fire'.









*then again: mebbe not so much...if the article, for example, tells me about the superior nature of dragon fire to volcano fire, and I know there is no dragon, then I may just take the article with a couple or three grains of salt

henry quirk wrote:Mannie,

Yeah, if 'if there's anything to it is the crux of the matter', then 'evidence' is its root.

As I said elsewhere: if I smell smoke, touch the door and find it warm or hot, I can -- based on the evidence -- conclude a fire is behind that door. I could be wrong, but I'm probably right.

Is it wrong of me to want my god-evidence to be equally tangible?

I want to 'smell the smoke' and 'feel the warmth of the door'.

Not wrong at all. Admirable. On the contrary, that one should be expected to believe *anything* without -- or even contrary to -- the preponderance of evidence is simply unreasonable. Those who think it's somehow okay for it to be different with the God question, that in that issue alone you can simply appeal to belief without evidence, are, in my judgment, quite wrong. Such would be asking the unreasonable. I do not keep party with them, though I am a Theist.

But as I suggested in the case of Newton in my earlier message, one can approach evidence in different frames of mind. One can approach the evidence to prove, or with an inclination to disprove. Once can even approach it with indifference. In the first case, one is open to the possibility of confirmation; in the second, one is perhaps less open or even closed altogether; in the third, one is in no frame of mind even to recognize the evidence AS evidence.

Now, if seeking the evidence for the existence of God is the task in hand, in which of the three modes above shall we approach the task? Are we seeking and hoping to know? Are we looking to disprove or dismiss at all costs? Or are we starting with the assumption that no evidence exists anyway, so there's nothing to see?

It makes all the difference to the question of what can be found.

The philosophers' way of saying this is that we must always start from the appropriate epistemological perspective for the matter in question, or it can distort what we conceive to be knowledge in that realm...