|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Identifying false religions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Straggler writes: So if someone had some sort of emotional need to believe in the actual existence of Middle Earth hobbits you would consider it rational and reasonable for them to believe in the actual existence of Middle Earth hobbits? Sure, or other reasons. If someone has an emotional need to believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte is it rational and reasonable for them to believe that they actually are Napoleon Bonaparte?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Straggler writes: If someone has an emotional need to believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte is it rational and reasonable for them to believe that they actually are Napoleon Bonaparte? For them, it might well be reasonable and rational. I would need to know what led them to that conclusion. Primarily they have a feeling of absolute conviction that this is the case. These feelings are indescribably strong, especially when reading historical accounts of Napoleon's life which just feel wholly familiar. In addition they cite some rather vague visions as evidence of this conclusion.
jar writes: Are they wrong, deluded? Almost certainly. But wouldn't this also apply to our believer in the existence of Middle Earth hobbits? Or do you think that there is a significant difference between the two examples?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: If one speculates that the sky is green however, the reply that it is blue and that this is the truth, is what needs to be substantiated by evidence (actual lightwaves, range defined as blue, etc), which is possible to do. Except that it could be those ethereal sky gremlins which are manipulating our measurements and tricking us all into believing that the green sky is actually blue. This possibility is unfalsified - and indeed unfalsifiable. Given that you have (apparently) proven that we cannot rationally consider any unfalsified conclusion to be improbable we cannot dismiss the potential existence of these tricksy sky gremlins as improbable. We must be entirely agnostic. Thus you have (apparently) proven that we must be rationally agnostic as to whether the sky actually is blue no matter how much detectable evidence there mat be to suggest that this is the case. Go figure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Have you read what I have written? Very carefully.
jar writes: Both can be wrong, deluded and still be reasonable and logical based on what they see as the evidence. I don't remember disagreeing with you on this at any point so far. What makes you think I am disputing this?
jar writes: Reasonable and logical are unrelated to being correct or being deluded. OK. I don't see what bearing this has on the questions I asked. Why do you think the questions I asked suggest dispute of this?
jar writes: Straggler writes: If someone has an emotional need to believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte is it rational and reasonable for them to believe that they actually are Napoleon Bonaparte? For them, it might well be reasonable and rational. I would need to know what led them to that conclusion. Primarily they have a feeling of absolute conviction that this is the case. These feelings are indescribably strong, especially when reading historical accounts of Napoleon's life which just feel wholly familiar. In addition they cite some rather vague visions as evidence of this conclusion.
jar writes: Are they wrong, deluded? Almost certainly. But wouldn't this also apply to our believer in the existence of Middle Earth hobbits? Or do you think that there is a significant difference between the two examples?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
What did I say the last time you asked that question? I have never before asked that question. It is you who has made the distinction between being rational/reasonable and delusional. I am happy to go along with your definitions with respect to this. You said that one who believes in the actual existence of Middle Earth hobbits on the basis of the Lord of the Rings text could be considered rational and reasonable if they did this for reasons of personal need. I am asking you if they are also "almost certainly" delusional? As (we seem to agree) those who believe themselves to be Napoleon Bonaparte are. Basically I am trying to find out what you think is delusional and what is not. Why. And then how this does or does not apply to religious beliefs based on texts. Texts which you have advocated as evidence. So how exactly does the Lord of the Rings text differ, in terms of being a valid form of evidence, to the bible? (if you indeed believe that it does). That is the question. Please be specific in your answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Are those who believe that the Lord Jeus born from a virgin, son of God who is himself God, able to perform miracles and facilitate ones passage to Heaven "deluded"?
Are those who believe in the actual existence of Middle Earth hobbits "deluded"? Are those who believe themselves to be Napoleon Bonaparte based on feelings of conviction etc. as previously described "deluded"? What, if any, is the difference betwen the three examples?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Well that is kinda ambiguous. Nobody here is gonna deny any possibilities. So where does that leave us?
Can you elaborate on your answer beyond simple possibility (which nobody denies anyway)? Are all three beliefs equally delusional? Is belief in some possibilities more delusional than others?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: DA writes: If you assume the possibility of God's existance, you must assume the possibility of an infinite number of other phenomena/things that the human mind could possibly conjure up as existing, including pink unicorns. Why? Because you have (apparently) proven that we cannot rationally consider ANY unfalsified notion as unlikely, improbable or anything else short of absolute agnosticism.
RAZD writes:
This was proven, and the proof has been posted several times. Here it is again, fleshed out a bit to perhaps help drive the point home Message 344
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
So you can't say why someone who believes that Jeus Christ, their Lord and Saviour, born from a virgin, son of God who is himself God, able to perform miracles and facilitate ones passage to Heaven is any less "deluded" than he who believes himself to be Napoleon Bonaparte?
Fair enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Well how do we decide who is deluded and who isn't?
Why are you so sure that our Napoleon Bonaparte wannabe is "almost certainly" deluded? Is our 'Christ as Lord and Saviour' (as mentioned previously) believer in an evidentially different position?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024