Philosophy Now Forum

Looks like its still feeding time a the Troll Zoo.

Nick_A wrote:

uwot wrote: uwot wrote:
Could you give an example of an argument that I have presented that is rendered powerless by my blind denial?

Uwot, this is just typical emoting justifying blind denial:

I dunno, if you can point out a flaw in their logic which they are not too stupid to understand, they generally Foxtrot Oscar. We got rid of Satyr and Kuznetzova. The current crop of undesirables are basically harmless, but rude. I'm just in the mood to kick the metaphorical poop out of them, because they say fatuous drivel like this:

Really? If it is "typical emoting", where are the other examples that it is typical of?

Nick_A wrote:All this means is that your blind denial prevents you from opening to experience what your blind denial blocks.

As it happens, Satyr is a white supremacist and Kuznetzova is a paedophile. My opposition to them has fuck all to do with blind denial.

Nick_A wrote:You believe you are marching against the enemy or in this case opposing the enemy so blind denial appears good.

You think so? Exactly what am I blindly denying? If you can put forward a simple proposition of what it is you think I have no good reason to deny, I will give you at least one good reason why I deny it.

Uwot wrote: ”You think so? Exactly what am I blindly denying? If you can put forward a simple proposition of what it is you think I have no good reason to deny, I will give you at least one good reason why I deny it.

Are you open to the possibility that a supernatural part of your psyche has not yet awakened making it impossible for you to experience the inner vertical direction of the God Man connection others have experienced or must you blindly deny it?

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

Notice that Uwot is strangely silent.

Nick_A wrote:

Uwot wrote: ”You think so? Exactly what am I blindly denying? If you can put forward a simple proposition of what it is you think I have no good reason to deny, I will give you at least one good reason why I deny it.

Are you open to the possibility that a supernatural part of your psyche has not yet awakened making it impossible for you to experience the inner vertical direction of the God Man connection others have experienced or must you blindly deny it?

I am open to that possibility and if it ever happens, I'll let you know.

Nick_A wrote:Notice that Uwot is strangely silent.

Sorry. I thought this thread was dead, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. But notice that you have not 'put forward a simple proposition of what it is you think I have no good reason to deny'.

uwot wrote: Nick_A wrote: Are you open to the possibility that a supernatural part of your psyche has not yet awakened making it impossible for you to experience the inner vertical direction of the God Man connection others have experienced or must you blindly deny it?

I am open to that possibility and if it ever happens, I'll let you know.

If so, you can intellectually doubt the source of creation but you cannot intellectually deny it. Denial can only be the result of a negative emotional reaction or "blind denial."

Nick_A wrote:...you can intellectually doubt the source of creation but you cannot intellectually deny it. Denial can only be the result of a negative emotional reaction or "blind denial."

Ah! I think you might be making the same mistake as Immanuel Can, which would be ironic, as it was you that provided the wiki definition of hard and soft atheist. Few atheists are prepared to argue that they can intellectually prove the non-existence of god. I don't think the epithet 'blind denier' is useful, but if that is what you mean by deny, I agree that hard atheists are promising more than they can deliver.
If the 'supernatural part of my psyche' decides to wake up, you'll be the first to know. In the meantime, while I don't 'deny' that it is a possibility, given that it has given me no cause to believe it is there, I rather doubt it.

Nick_A wrote:If so, you can intellectually doubt the source of creation but you cannot intellectually deny it. ...

Of course you can as it may well be the case that there was no creation and the Universe is infinite and eternal but that what we see is a small corner based upon the speed of light.

Denial can only be the result of a negative emotional reaction or "blind denial."

No, it can be the result of metaphysics but like its subset creation theology I think it pretty much solved by Kant.

Nick_A wrote:Are you open to the possibility that a supernatural part of your psyche has not yet awakened making it impossible for you to experience the inner vertical direction of the God Man connection others have experienced or must you blindly deny it?

Don't know about other atheists but I don't deny that you have experiences that you've already predefined as this, what I deny is that this means that your 'God' exists in the sense of actually existing as the thing you describe, although like all the latest theists here you are very short on describing this 'God' of yours. My reason why is that history shows that others appear to have had experiences like yours but they don't ascribe them to the same 'God' as you, which leads me to believe that yours is a cultural interpretation.

Arising_uk wrote:Don't know about other atheists but I don't deny that you have experiences that you've already predefined as this...

Personally, I wouldn't assume that any such experience is necessarily predefined, I suppose a Damascene revelation is possible. Like you say though, what we don't know is the nature of these experiences; whether they are different to any experiences that atheists have and simply interpret differently. I remember feeling bathed in light when I realised that time dilation due to velocity, a la special relativity, is bleeding obvious. Come to think of it, working out that gravity can be explained by refraction was pretty good too. Seeing my twins born was also pretty trippy. It just never occurred to me that god was showing me something.

uwot wrote:Personally, I wouldn't assume that any such experience is necessarily predefined, I suppose a Damascene revelation is possible. ...

Fair point, although I was referring to the process that Nick_A and Reflex appear to describe.

Like you say though, what we don't know is the nature of these experiences; whether they are different to any experiences that atheists have and simply interpret differently. I remember feeling bathed in light when I realised that time dilation due to velocity, a la special relativity, is bleeding obvious. Come to think of it, working out that gravity can be explained by refraction was pretty good too. Seeing my twins born was also pretty trippy. It just never occurred to me that god was showing me something.

Me too, I've also had some pretty bad experiences and never thought that a 'God' was trying to get in contact either.

A

rising wrote: Nick_A wrote:
If so, you can intellectually doubt the source of creation but you cannot intellectually deny it. ...

Of course you can as it may well be the case that there was no creation and the Universe is infinite and eternal but that what we see is a small corner based upon the speed of light.

Arising, you are so lost in emotional blind denial that you no longer can distinguish between the concepts of doubt and deny. You are describing what adds to your doubt but this doubt is insufficient for denial which can only be justified through emotion: blind denial.

Nick_A wrote:Arising, you are so lost in emotional blind denial that you no longer can distinguish between the concepts of doubt and deny. ...

Explain to me how you can intellectually doubt something but not then intellectually deny it?

You are describing what adds to your doubt but this doubt is insufficient for denial which can only be justified through emotion: blind denial.

What are you talking about? I said that metaphysically and physically the Universe could well be infinite and eternal, personally I have no idea if it is or isn't and pretty much no care which.

Nick_A wrote:Notice that Uwot is strangely silent.

We all wish you were.

Arising wrote:

Explain to me how you can intellectually doubt something but not then intellectually deny it?

If what you imply is true we would be incapable of the sacred impulse of HOPE. Stephanie Strickland wrote in the intro to her award winning poem: "The Red Virgin:"

Simone Weil belongs to a world culture, still to be formed, where the voices of multiple classes, castes, races, genders, ethnicities, nationalities, and religions, can be respected. To achieve this culture is an impossible task, but, as Weil would remind us, not on that account to be forsaken.

I believe it is an impossible task. I intellectually doubt humanity as a whole will survive the catastrophic results of technology. There seems to be too much against it. However I cannot intellectually deny the possibility. I have hope Simone inspires hope. I can doubt it intellectually but cannot intellectually deny it. Denial would be a blind reaction of negative emotion.