What is love?

[plumjam]

No, exactly the opposite. Pay attention.
We all percieve in an impaired manner, we are just often unaware of our impairments. We cannot see infrared or ultroviolet, or see an electron. That's why "materialists" do not rely on the five senses.

Really? So if materialists do not rely on the five senses, what is it they do rely on?
Just to save you the trouble I anticipate you saying something like 'measuring devices' 'gauges' 'sensors' or whatnot. Please realise that the information from these things can only be conveyed to your consciousness via the 5 senses.
(Unless, like myself, you too believe that there are more than 5 modes through which reality can be perceived)

Let's say we are in a room together, and you see a chair, and I don't. There are two possibilites, the chair is there, or it isn't. One of us is wrong, from any of a dozen reasons. If it is there, something wil indicate it- If you smash a vase with it, or sit in it with your feet off the floor, or stack a pile of books on it I'm going to have to admit the chair exists, despite my inability to perceive it.

How do you manage to perceive the smashing vase, or my feet off the floor, yet not simultaneously perceive the chair? The primary two pertain to visual perception, as would the chair itself. How could you see the vase and the feet, but not the chair?

That's a subjective judgement on your part, proving my point. Not everyone agrees with your assesment of her work. But, you have already decided that there is something flawed with her music, so therefore anyone who likes it is "impaired". Preconcived conclusions again.

Let's stretch your opinion out. To be consistent you'd have to feel comfortable with agreeing in some rational manner that the musical output of the Beatles was in no way objectively demonstrably less aesthetically valuable than the musical output of 4 chimpanzees let loose in the Abbey Road studios for a few months.

To a truly objective reciever- a tape recorder, a turtle, a rock, or a computer, there isn't an objective difference. it's all just sound waves. If you percieved the information any other way besides sound- looking at the digital code, for instance, you wouldn't know the difference either.

So, the logical consequence of this is that music doesn't exist. Only noise.

And there is probably soneone out there who hates Mozart and loves the bagpipes no matter who is playing. There are also those that enjoy random, discordant noises as art.

If someone like this exists they are musically aesthetic idiots. In the same way that a blind person is a visual idiot.

You've never seen an abused child flinch from a simple touch? Or heard of a stalker "love" a woman he's never met?

Does this have anything to do with the discussion?

There is no reasonable way to come to that conclusion. Contrarywise, if there were an objective emotional reality, we would expect everbody to have the same emotional reaction to the same stimulii. Which we do not see. We see a great variety. Some people, when given flowers, are charmed, some are insulted (a cheap apology for an egregious misdeed), some are horrified (severe allergies, complete lack of attraction), some are crushed (prize-winning blooms plucked before their time). An objective emotional reality is patetly hogwash.

Nonsense. There is an objective visual reality, which you accept. Some people are blind, some people have 20/20 vision. The same applies in the emotional realm. Some people, such as saints, have very good emotional perception. Other people such as sociopaths, serial killers, the autistic etc.. are very impaired in their ability to perceive emotional and moral objective truth.

"Beauty" cannot break a vase, or hold up a stack of books.

Of course it can. A person's perception that a vase is not beautiful enough can cause that person to break that vase. Beauty can, via the owner of those books' aesthetic sense encourage that owner to go and buy some shelves for those books.

But the very fact that there are several standards of beauty mean that no matter how "well-developed" one's aesthetic sense may be in on frame of reference, it will be meaningless to another standard. The only way to even pretend this is objectivity is to premptively conclude that one's own standard is superior to all others, and there's no way to do that except by stipulation. One million Elvis fans can be wrong, to the man who does not like rock and roll.

The logical consequence being that no-one could ever say whether a nation of the blind or a nation of the one-eyed could reasonably claim to be visually perceiving the world more accurately. Sorry Psicivore, more nonsense on your part.

Whoah, sparky, I never said beauty wan't "real", I said it wasn't objective and it wasn't external to someone's brain.

So what is real by your criteria?

 

[Robin]

Really? So if materialists do not rely on the five senses, what is it they do rely on?
Just to save you the trouble I anticipate you saying something like 'measuring devices' 'gauges' 'sensors' or whatnot. Please realise that the information from these things can only be conveyed to your consciousness via the 5 senses.
(Unless, like myself, you too believe that there are more than 5 modes through which reality can be perceived)

Isn't it astonishing that whenever immaterialists make this remarkable claim, they never, ever go on to specify what these other modes might be?

 

[dglas]

I guess I did a complete flyby... no surprise.

 

[blobru]

Actually, on spiritual/religious/philosophical/moral matters no. I look forward to you actually reading all of his discourses which are freely available online, and coming back to me with your criticisms.

God is all. God is love. Baba is God. Be like Baba.

Something like that.

Pedantry. He was delivering teachings (in that discourse) on love, and was saying that gravity and magnetism are themselves forms of love which exist on a lower level to that of animal, human or divine love.
If you have a quibble about exactly how things were stated in that respect, well, you're just a quibbler, and you willfully are ignoring the bigger picture.

Call me names if you like. Doesn't change the fact that in this sentence, Baba is attempting to justify his metaphysics (All is Love) by claiming the force of [electromagnetic] repulsion is actually attraction! This is a testable, scientific claim:

Even the forces of repulsion are in truth expressions of love, since things are repelled from each other because they are more powerfully attracted to some other things.

"Even the forces of repulsion..." (electromagnetism: like poles repel) "...are in truth expressions of love..." (how do you equate electromagnetic repulsion with "love" and attraction, Baba?) "...since things are repelled from each other because they are more powerfully attracted to some other things." (scientific claim: like poles don't repel each other, they become more powerfully attracted to other things. But a simple experiment [previous post] disproves this.)

So Baba is wrong. Big deal. He's only human, right? We all make mistakes. That's how we learn. Acknowledge it, chuckle, figure out what went wrong, and move on. Surely Baba is able to do that. Or must everything he says be true, for some reason?

Lots of A's and B's in that paragraph. Not much sense.

A and B repel. Baba is wrong.

Faraday and Baba both believed in God very strongly. Faraday gave sermons within his own branch of religion.

In church, I gather. Not in the laboratory.

I can see that you like the word "Baba". Perhaps in the future this predilection of yours will stand you in good stead.

It's a great word. It's what babies say when they want a nice suck from the bottle, or whatever. (Ah, those were the days...)

I previously had pegged you as an intelligent contributor to the forum. These last few posts of yours are pushing you in the direction of silliness.

Uh-oh. You're not being repelled, are you?

I'm a skeptic. Not a very good one, but I'm learning. That's why I come to this forum. To argue, to "quibble", to better define. To make mistakes, and to learn.

If someone else makes a mistake, I say so. If this someone claims to be god-like, perfect and infallible, I make fun of 'em, to bring 'em back down to earth. For clearly, having made a mistake, they're not as advertised.

The only people I get silly with are (a) good friends; and (b) people who believe they never make mistakes.

Can Baba make mistakes when talking about love? (I hope so. That's a huge subject: half the world's literature is devoted to it, give or take a page.)

If yes, he's a candidate for group (a). If no, I'll continue to parody his pompous self-importance, 'avatar' or not.

 

[plumjam]

Isn't it astonishing that whenever immaterialists make this remarkable claim, they never, ever go on to specify what these other modes might be?

I won't be answering your other responses seeing as I hadn't directed the original responses to yourself, your responses were long, and basically I can't be arsed... particularly as it is the same kind of dogma being regurgitated by the others.

To answer your question, I have frequently specified what these modes beyond the 5 senses may be. Namely conscience, aesthetic appreciation, reason, logic, mathematical perception, and religious perception.
I have no doubt that you will be forced to accept some, and due to your materialist position, you'll be obliged to do your best to dismiss others among these modes of perception.
None of which is really honest, let's face it.

 

[plumjam]

God is all. God is love. Baba is God. Be like Baba.

Something like that.

Maybe you should write book reviews.
Come back in 6 months.

Call me names if you like. Doesn't change the fact that in this sentence, Baba is attempting to justify his metaphysics (All is Love) by claiming the force of [electromagnetic] repulsion is actually attraction! This is a testable, scientific claim:



"Even the forces of repulsion..." (electromagnetism: like poles repel) "...are in truth expressions of love..." (how do you equate electromagnetic repulsion with "love" and attractio, Baba?) ""since things are repelled from each other because they are more powerfully attracted to some other things." (scientific claim: like poles don't repel each other, they become more powerfully attracted to other things. But a simple experiment [previous post] disproves this.)

So Baba is wrong. Big deal. He's only human, right? We all make mistakes. That's how we learn. Acknowledge it, chuckle, figure out what went wrong, and move on. Surely Baba is able to do that. Or must everything he says be true, for some reason?



A and B repel. Baba is wrong.



In church, I gather. Not in the laboratory.



It's a great word. It's what babies say when they want a nice suck from the bottle, or whatever. (Ah, those were the days...)



Uh-oh. You're not being repelled, are you?

I'm a skeptic. Not a very good one, but I'm learning. That's why I come to this forum. To argue, to "quibble", to better define. To make mistakes, and to learn.

If someone else makes a mistake, I say so. If this someone claims to be god-like, perfect and infallible, I make fun of 'em, to bring 'em back down to earth. For clearly, having made a mistake, they're not as advertised.

what are you on about? his point was that repulsion can just as well be described as a form of attraction to other things, which are not in the general vicinity of the thing being ''not-attracted-to'.
If, at the human level, you go into a nightclub, and are attracted towards a particular female, is your attraction to her dependent on the amount of ugly people around you who you are not attracted to?
No.
You are attracted to her for her own beauty, not the fact that someone behind you has a massive nose.

The only people I get silly with are (a) good friends; and (b) people who believe they never make mistakes.
Can Baba make mistakes when talking about love? (I hope so. That's a huge subject: half the world's literature is devoted to it, give or take a page.)

In my experience, no. He didn't make mistakes when talking about love. You are labouring under the prejudice that all examples of the human form must by necessity be fallible. Some very rare exceptions such as divine incarnations like Jesus and Meher Baba may well not be subject to that. Your belief that everyone must be is just a kind of faith.

If yes, he's a candidate for group (a). If no, I'll continue to parody his pompous self-importance, 'avatar' or not.

You are welcome to "debunk" him if you like. During his life he repeatedly stated he preferred people be honest about their views on him. He preferred people to honestly think he was a fake, over people who through some sense of misguided piety preferred to dissemble that they felt he was an avatar.

 

[Robin]

I won't be answering your other responses seeing as I hadn't directed the original responses to yourself, your responses were long, and basically I can't be arsed... particularly as it is the same kind of dogma being regurgitated by the others.

Lame excuse noted.

Also noted new charge of dogmatism made with the usual absense of even the remotest shred of evidence or even specificity. Business as usual for you.

To answer your question, I have frequently specified what these modes beyond the 5 senses may be. Namely conscience, aesthetic appreciation, reason, logic, mathematical perception, and religious perception.

I have no doubt that you will be forced to accept some, and due to your materialist position, you'll be obliged to do your best to dismiss others among these modes of perception.
None of which is really honest, let's face it.

I accept conscience, asthetic appreciation, reason, logic, mathematics and even religion.

But the question is, are these methods of perception?

Aesthetic appreciation, for example, would seem to imply the five senses. And you would have to demonstrate that beauty is not, as most people would believe, in the eye of the beholder.

As for reason, mathematics and its subset logic, these are, in a sense, methods of perception since sensual perception would be meaningless without them.

The claim that conscience is a method of perception would seem to beg the question. If there is a Natural Moral Law and conscience is our understanding of it, how are we perceiving the Natural Moral Law?

And religion - well I have often asked people to be more specific about the nature of religious experiences. It seems to be all about vague numinous feelings.

 

[JoeEllison]

Isn't it astonishing that whenever immaterialists make this remarkable claim, they never, ever go on to specify what these other modes might be?

Or, when they do, they claim things that depend on the five senses or the physical brain... which means they've led you around in a stupid little circle of time wasting nonsense?

 

[dglas]

Robin's posts don't seem too long to me. I got through the one above (#167) in less than three hours. Perhaps poor old Plumjam is approaching all this half-arsed, since he can't be fully arsed for even a short post...

 

[Robin]

Or, when they do, they claim things that depend on the five senses or the physical brain... which means they've led you around in a stupid little circle of time wasting nonsense?

Yes, it is all semantics. You could as easily say that the brain is a method of perception and the 5 senses are it's data sources.

 

[plumjam]

Lame excuse noted.

Also noted new charge of dogmatism made with the usual absense of even the remotest shred of evidence or even specificity. Business as usual for you.

Hang on a minute. This is pretty rude of you. You reply at length to a post I made to another person, and me not wanting to spend the time and effort of bringing you into the conversation is dismissed as a 'lame excuse'.
This also, in a context in which other people are doing the same.

I accept conscience, asthetic appreciation, reason, logic, mathematics and even religion.

Great reason for positivity here. Perhaps you aren't the usual Neanderthal late 19th Century Materialist.

But the question is, are these methods of perception?

How do you perceive moral injustices? Is there something in the way the light of them contacts your retina which helps your brain to know what is right and wrong?

Aesthetic appreciation, for example, would seem to imply the five senses.

Not really. Most mathematicians describe certain theorems as beautiful, despite them not being perceived via the senses.

And you would have to demonstrate that beauty is not, as most people would believe, in the eye of the beholder.

Anyone who believes this is an idiot. If such a person were born into a society in which chimps playing drums were seen as more beautiful than Mozart or the Beatles, then this person would have to concur with the idiot majority who were of clearly impaired aesthetic sensibility.

As for reason, mathematics and its subset logic, these are, in a sense, methods of perception since sensual perception would be meaningless without them.

Correct. They are forms of perception that are not sense-based. Which means that it is possible to perceive reality in extra-sensory ways. And who is to say how many modes of extra-sensory perception there may be?

The claim that conscience is a method of perception would seem to beg the question. If there is a Natural Moral Law and conscience is our understanding of it, how are we perceiving the Natural Moral Law?

via our conscience... you know.. feeling good or bad about a moral decision you made

And religion - well I have often asked people to be more specific about the nature of religious experiences. It seems to be all about vague numinous feelings.

If a blind man kept demanding of a sighted person that he describe his experience of sight in a manner understandable to the blind man... well, how does that situation strike you? reasonable? a bit mad? fertile ground for frustration and misunderstanding?
If religiously you are blind, how can a religously sighted person convince you of anything?
First you would have to become religiously sighted yourself. And if your default position was that your current perceptual ability in this reality is as far as you're ever going to go, then it's pretty much a self-fulfilling prophecy.. you'll dismiss it, and possibly spend your time and energy trying to discredit or ridicule those whose perceptual abilities have transcended your own.

Pretty common that, here at the good old JREF.

 

[edge]

First you would have to become religiously sighted yourself.

Before you recognize that there is some thing else involved here that is subtle and recognizable.
You have to take the leap and see. But your heart has to be in it, we all eventually take that leap but most have to be humbled first.

Pretty common that, here at the good old JREF.

Oh it's getting dark, alright everybody inside!

 

[JoeEllison]

Yes, it is all semantics. You could as easily say that the brain is a method of perception and the 5 senses are it's data sources.

But they always have to inject a double dose of stupid, don't they? Beyond things that really exist, they also claim that childish mythological things also exist... except you can't actually perceive them in any way. No way, of course, other than putting on your Stupid Glasses, and PRETENDING that they exist, things like the Easter Bunny, Santa, and Jesus.

 

[Robin]

Hang on a minute. This is pretty rude of you.

Ruder than an unevidenced charge of dogmatism? Am I not allowed to respond in kind?

You reply at length to a post I made to another person, and me not wanting to spend the time and effort of bringing you into the conversation is dismissed as a 'lame excuse'.
This also, in a context in which other people are doing the same.

If you had been as good as your word and simply not responded I would have said nothing. After all I did not ask for a response.

But you did respond. You responded to say you were not going to respond. And then you went ahead and responded anyway.

A bit like Complexity, who always contributes to a thread to inform us he won’t be contributing to that thread. Then he goes ahead and contributes anyway.

Great reason for positivity here. Perhaps you aren't the usual Neanderthal late 19th Century Materialist.

Acutally Materialism was just about non-existent in the late 19th century. Positivism was all the rage then.

How do you perceive moral injustices? Is there something in the way the light of them contacts your retina which helps your brain to know what is right and wrong?

It is a good question for atheists and theists alike. Many theists, for example, would insist that we perceive right and wrong via our retinas or ear drums when these things are directed at scriptures and church teachings. Others would insist that conscience is something instilled in us by God, in which case it is not perception but recollection.

I would say that we determine injustices in more than one way. For example if someone takes credit for my work I will feel an emotional reaction. If someone takes credit for someone else’s work I can sympathise with the same emotional reaction in them. Or, on an intellectual level I might reason that the person who took the credit will be given responsibility that they are not able to handle, to the detriment of the company.

It’s like I said before the brain is a method of perception, the senses are its data sources. Of course our emotions are also its data source.

Not really. Most mathematicians describe certain theorems as beautiful, despite them not being perceived via the senses.

Good point. I have always said that the lzw algorithm was way more beautiful than the Mona Lisa.

Anyone who believes this is an idiot. If such a person were born into a society in which chimps playing drums were seen as more beautiful than Mozart or the Beatles, then this person would have to concur with the idiot majority who were of clearly impaired aesthetic sensibility.

And yet if somebody hears Mozart and says “I don’t like it”, what do you say? Do you say “No, you are wrong, you do like it!”?

Correct. They are forms of perception that are not sense-based. Which means that it is possible to perceive reality in extra-sensory ways. And who is to say how many modes of extra-sensory perception there may be?

More accurately the senses don't perceive. The eyes don't see things and the ears don't hear things. The brain perceives and the senses are the data sources. So there is only one mode of perception - the mind. The question is how many avenues does the mind have to external data?

via our conscience... you know.. feeling good or bad about a moral decision you made

Exactly. “our conscience”. Feeling good or bad. Not perceiving anything external to ourselves.

If a blind man kept demanding of a sighted person that he describe his experience of sight in a manner understandable to the blind man... well, how does that situation strike you? reasonable? a bit mad? fertile ground for frustration and misunderstanding?

I once saw a film where a composer and music teacher discovers his son was deaf from birth. As music is the most important thing in his life he withdraws from the son. One day his son asks why he is sad and he says “John Lennon died, but you wouldn’t understand”. The son gets mad and says “Do you think I don’t know who John Lennon is, or understand how important he is?”.

The father then realises that his son’s deafness is no reason why he shouldn’t share his love of music with his son.

In answer to your question the situation the situation strikes me as reasonable and sane and that misunderstanding and frustration are on the path to every sort of knowledge.

But when enough people simply say “You wouldn’t understand, you are not religious” or “you have got to become religiously sighted yourself” (without defining what that means) I begin to suspect that there is nothing behind it more than the emotions I commonly feel when I hear a great piece of music or see a beautiful landscape or understand some clever theorem.

Pretty common that at the good old JREF.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Before you recognize that there is some thing else involved here that is subtle and recognizable.
You have to take the leap and see. But your heart has to be in it, we all eventually take that leap but most have to be humbled first.

Like many of the atheists on this forum I used to be very faithful. A born again Christian in my case. I took the leap and I saw: There was nothing to separate my faith from any of the others that I dismissed as superstition. There is nothing to suggest that humans occupy a privileged place in the universe. I look out at the universe with science and see a fraction of it in all its mind-bending immensity and I am stunned by its beauty and glory, and humbled by how tiny and fleeting we are in comparison. How provincial and anthropomorphic our gods seem in comparison. How preposterously arrogant our religions are to claim to have the final answers in the face of such impenetrable mystery surrounding us. How weak they seem with their erroneous proclamations of inerrant truth, torn down by a simple but effective methodology of investigation. How precious and fragile we are. We are made of material produced in stars and complexity doesn't go from the top down, it goes from the bottom up. The sense of religious awe I have when confronted by the universe dwarfs that which I had in the presence of a god made in the image of men.

 

[Robin]

Before you recognize that there is some thing else involved here that is subtle and recognizable.
You have to take the leap and see. But your heart has to be in it, we all eventually take that leap but most have to be humbled first.

But take a look from outside in. Can you see why we might be skeptical of a claim like that? It is one step away from "You can see God, but you have got to believe in him first".

Very convenient, but an odd way for a God to behave who wants people to come to him.

 

[plumjam]

If you had been as good as your word and simply not responded I would have said nothing. After all I did not ask for a response.

But you did respond. You responded to say you were not going to respond. And then you went ahead and responded anyway.

No. You made one long reply, and then one short reply, to my replies to other people. I chose to reply to your short reply because I couldn't be arsed with the long one. I told you why, and you claimed it was some kind of evasion. Let's remember correctly.

A bit like Complexity, who always contributes to a thread to inform us he won’t be contributing to that thread. Then he goes ahead and contributes anyway.

Not at all like Complexity. You were replying to my reply to another person. Unbidded. Seeing as this is a thread on love I shall not say anything else about Complexity.

Acutally Materialism was just about non-existent in the late 19th century. Positivism was all the rage then.

Are you a regular on the Comedy Channel?

It is a good question for atheists and theists alike. Many theists, for example, would insist that we perceive right and wrong via our retinas or ear drums when these things are directed at scriptures and church teachings. Others would insist that conscience is something instilled in us by God, in which case it is not perception but recollection.

Which theists that you can cite say that morality is perceived via the retinas/ear drums rather than the conscience?

would say that we determine injustices in more than one way. For example if someone takes credit for my work I will feel an emotional reaction. If someone takes credit for someone else’s work I can sympathise with the same emotional reaction in them. Or, on an intellectual level I might reason that the person who took the credit will be given responsibility that they are not able to handle, to the detriment of the company.
It’s like I said before the brain is a method of perception, the senses are its data sources. Of course our emotions are also its data source.

The 5 senses are some data sources for the brain. As you gallantly concede there are other forms of perception carried out by the human mind, such as maths. Emotional and moral perception, how does that work? If we're being honest, we don't know. But we know that our lives are, I would say, a good 50% based on emotional and moral perception.
All mysterious.

Good point. I have always said that the lzw algorithm was way more beautiful than the Mona Lisa.

Cheers. I have no clue what the LZW algorithm is, but neither do I have much clue as to the fuss about Mona Lisa.

And yet if somebody hears Mozart and says “I don’t like it”, what do you say? Do you say “No, you are wrong, you do like it!”?

It would depend on the piece, but if it was one of his best, and the person purported to prefer Britney or the chimps I would just have to conclude that my aesthetic perception was better than theirs.. just as some people have better eyesight than others.

More accurately the senses don't perceive. The eyes don't see things and the ears don't hear things. The brain perceives and the senses are the data sources. So there is only one mode of perception - the mind. The question is how many avenues does the mind have to external data?

Yes. Very well said. Perhaps you are coalescing a bit with myself. I'm typing to you on a laptop computer. Who knew in 1980 that in the computer world the internet or wi-fi communication of myself with anyone on the planet might be possible on my sofa or walking about my flat? And how much more complex is the brain, and how little we understand of it. Who can be sure the brain doesn't have wi-fi abilities?

Exactly. “our conscience”. Feeling good or bad. Not perceiving anything external to ourselves.

No, you're still perceiving stuff external to yourself. If you witness a guy trying to rape a child that event is external to yourself and you perceive a moral reality about that act which is external to yourself.

I once saw a film where a composer and music teacher discovers his son was deaf from birth. As music is the most important thing in his life he withdraws from the son. One day his son asks why he is sad and he says “John Lennon died, but you wouldn’t understand”. The son gets mad and says “Do you think I don’t know who John Lennon is, or understand how important he is?”.
The father then realises that his son’s deafness is no reason why he shouldn’t share his love of music with his son.
In answer to your question the situation the situation strikes me as reasonable and sane and that misunderstanding and frustration are on the path to every sort of knowledge.

But what kind of knowledge is the blind man going to gain from the sighted man unless the blind man puts his stubborn doubt and disbelief aside and puts some faith in what the sighted man is trying to explain to him?
That is a central problem in the interface between (genuinely) religious people and the non-religious.

But when enough people simply say “You wouldn’t understand, you are not religious” or “you have got to become religiously sighted yourself” (without defining what that means)

How would you recommend a sighted person define for a blind person what sight, light, colour..etc.. means?

I begin to suspect that there is nothing behind it more than the emotions I commonly feel when I hear a great piece of music or see a beautiful landscape or understand some clever theorem.

I understand your doubts. I can only recommend that you spend a decent amount of time learning about the lives and teachings of genuine religious personalities.
If people constantly demand that everything be set out in front of them so that everything becomes completely obvious to every conceivable mindset.. well that's just a bit unrealistic. If someone shouts to me that a meal is ready in the dining room I don't remain where I am paralysed by doubt as to whether the meal may or may not be there. That is just a regressive, closed, needlessly fearful approach to life.
Investigate it yourself. I'd highly recommend you put your materialist doubts on hold, and read William James The Varieties of Religious Experience, and then Evelyn Underhill's Mysticism, which are the two main classics in the field.

 

[rocketdodger]

If a blind man kept demanding of a sighted person that he describe his experience of sight in a manner understandable to the blind man... well, how does that situation strike you? reasonable? a bit mad? fertile ground for frustration and misunderstanding?
If religiously you are blind, how can a religously sighted person convince you of anything?
First you would have to become religiously sighted yourself. And if your default position was that your current perceptual ability in this reality is as far as you're ever going to go, then it's pretty much a self-fulfilling prophecy.. you'll dismiss it, and possibly spend your time and energy trying to discredit or ridicule those whose perceptual abilities have transcended your own.

Pretty common that, here at the good old JREF.

Plumjam, you seem to be coming up with horrible analogies faster than people can stomp on them. Lets dispose of this one right away, shall we?

If the blind man asks "prove to me that you have sight," it would not be very difficult at all. The sighted man touch him exactly on the nose, or guide him through a forest, or build a house for him, or any number of things that blind people cannot do because of a lack of sight. Note that the blind man would have no choice but to accept that the sighted man was in some fundamental way different due to how much better he could perform these tasks. He might try to explain the difference in some other way, and refuse to acknowledge sight, but he must realize it is there.

When it comes to religion, and your "religious sense," .... well, can you give me some examples of externally observable things that all religious people can do that all atheists cannot?

 

[JoeEllison]

Plumjam, you seem to be coming up with horrible analogies faster than people can stomp on them. Lets dispose of this one right away, shall we?

If the blind man asks "prove to me that you have sight," it would not be very difficult at all. The sighted man touch him exactly on the nose, or guide him through a forest, or build a house for him, or any number of things that blind people cannot do because of a lack of sight. Note that the blind man would have no choice but to accept that the sighted man was in some fundamental way different due to how much better he could perform these tasks. He might try to explain the difference in some other way, and refuse to acknowledge sight, but he must realize it is there.

When it comes to religion, and your "religious sense," .... well, can you give me some examples of externally observable things that all religious people can do that all atheists cannot?

They can come up with horrible analogies faster than anyone else?

 

[rocketdodger]

If people constantly demand that everything be set out in front of them so that everything becomes completely obvious to every conceivable mindset.. well that's just a bit unrealistic. If someone shouts to me that a meal is ready in the dining room I don't remain where I am paralysed by doubt as to whether the meal may or may not be there. That is just a regressive, closed, needlessly fearful approach to life.

Ugh... yet another one....

Are you comparing belief in god to the belief that your family or friends have prepared dinner?

1) I have eaten dinner before, so I know it at least exists.
2) They have prepared it before, so I have some trust in them.
3) Taking the bait, and finding out it was a joke, results in little more than a few seconds of my time lost.

Compare to:

1) I have no idea if God exists, or even wtf "he" is supposed to be.
2) Nobody who purports to deliver god has ever done so, at least in an observable way.
3) Taking the bait, and finding out it was a joke, is why hundreds of thousands die each year.