Refuting the Matrix Argument (Or: Why Stoned College Kids Make Bad Philosophers)

[tjkozinski]

Very good analysis, anti-theist.

I would just say this: when one trusts in a tradition of rationality, and becomes a member of such a tradition, one puts oneself in a dialectical and dialogic and communal and collaborative relationship with others, past and present, and with filtered and purified and worked-out wisdom, and this is the best way to ensure that one’s perceptions are not idiosyncratic and distorted.

You might ask: What if everyone in the tradition is wrong? Well, that’s a possibility, but certain traditions are more coherent and intellectually and culturally and spiritually successful than others, and this is historically and empirically evident. And moreover, some traditions purport to be guided ultimately by, and resolved ultimately in, divine revelation. If this is the case, then such a tradition would be one that one could safely subscribe to, as it would be to participate in God’s knowledge.

The question is which tradition to subscribe to, not whether to subscribe to one, for knowledge is impossible outside of a tradition of enquiry and rationality, and noone is traditionless. I recommend the work of Alasdair MacIntyre on this. One is already in a tradition, so it’s not a choice in that sense, but one can use the resources from within one’s tradition to evaluate other traditions, after learning their language, so to speak, of enquiry and rationality. That is, conversion is possible.

The key is not to be on one’s own, or to think that this is where one should be, in terms of rational inquiry. This is the deception of modernity in general. The key to not being self-deceived is to be in relation with others in a vibrant community of learning and critique. My argument is not incoherent, anti-theist, because self-correction and knowing that one knows are possible through (and only through) dialogic and dialectical enquiry with others.

Furthermore, if the Church is not capable of self-deception (and I do not think she is), then anyone can always go to her for infallible correction. I might misunderstand or not fully understand her wisdom, but I can assymptotically approach conformity of my mind with her mind through obedience to her doctrines, submission to her authorities, critical philosophical theological dialectic (St. Thomas being the master–1000 difficulties do not add up to one doubt), prayer, sacramental life, etc.

If I believed that participating in Catholic tradition was to participate in God, the source and culmination of all Truth, then it would be the most fully rational thing I could do. Is Catholic Tradition the truth? To ask the question genuinely is already to be close to answering it.

 

[AntiTheist]

(It’s not clear which ones you’re referring to - “these” ones… You just mean crimes in general? And what truth about them? That’s not at all clear either.)

Your posts remind me of Blake’s “idiot Questioner who is always questioning, / But never capable of answering.”

I don’t know how much clearer I can make my point.

Let’s say that there’s a jury that is charged with determining whether or not a guy killed his wife. They use the evidence they hear during the trial to render a verdict.

Do juries have a consistently reliable method of determining whether or not a party is likely to be guilty?

The claim, “Defendent X is very likely to be guilty in this case” is a truth claim. I’m asking if you think that juries have a consistently reliable method of arriving at such a truth.

Again: “consistently reliable” does not mean “always, infallibly correct.” It just means – surprise, surprise – consistently reliable.

EDIT: Just so it’s clear, my answer to this question, obviously, is that yes, juries do have a consistently reliable method of deciding the truth that X is likely in cases like this one. It’s called evidence-based inquiry.

If they didn’t have a consistently reliably method of determining the truth, then we couldn’t have a criminal justice system. We would never have a good reason to lock up a criminal – or an insane person, for that matter.

 

[AntiTheist]

Very good analysis, anti-theist.

Yes, it was.

You might ask: What if everyone in the tradition is wrong? Well, that’s a possibility, but certain traditions are more coherent and intellectually and culturally and spiritually successful than others, and this is historically and empirically evident.

You intend to use empirical evidence to demonstrate that there’s a more successful tradition than the “tradition of rationality”?

You might want to think this one over a little more.

And moreover, some traditions purport to be guided ultimately by, and resolved ultimately in, divine revelation. If this is the case

And what makes you think that it’s actually the case, exactly?

From where I sit, the “tradition” of using evidence and reason has been far and above the most successful tradition of all, not only because of the vast strides it’s enabled us to make (like, for example, the computer that you’re reading this message on), but also because it’s self-correcting (the only way to correct a false conclusion made on the basis of faulty evidence is by discovering more evidence).

if the Church is not capable of self-deception (and I do not think she is)

That’s an awfully big assumption you’re making there. What exactly leads you to the conclusion that “the Church is not capable of self-deception”? Because they say so?

If I believed that participating in Catholic tradition was to participate in God, the source and culmination of all Truth, then it would be the most fully rational thing I could do.

But why on earth would you believe that in the first place?

If you present evidence and rational arguments for this belief, then you are implicitly admitting that the “tradition of rationality” needs to be used to evaluate claims.

If you instead say that it’s just a matter of faith, then you’re saying that your trust in the Catholic Church is completely and totally arbitrary, and you have no reason to prefer it over the belief in Scientology or some other wacky idea.

 

[Betterave]

Your posts remind me of Blake’s “idiot Questioner who is always questioning, / But never capable of answering.”

I guess you really feel this kind of juvenile ad hominem idiocy is indispensable for you to really express what you’re about? It’s not at all clear what Blake’s idiot Questioner was always questioning about or why he was never capable of answering, but I wonder if it was because he was talking to an idiot who didn’t understand an answer when he heard one and who was incapable of understanding the distinctions necessary to actually answering the idiot Questioner’s questions…

I don’t know how much clearer I can make my point.

And I hope you can see that that illustrates my point: you may simply lack the intellectual ability required to make your point adequately clear, or to understand when it is not adequately clear, and this because you lack the intellectual ability to understand the point that you need to respond to. It’s like some people just don’t get math; some people just don’t get the basic concepts of epistemology.

Let’s say that there’s a jury that is charged with determining whether or not a guy killed his wife. They use the evidence they hear during the trial to render a verdict.

Do juries have a consistently reliable method of determining whether or not a party is likely to be guilty?

The claim, “Defendent X is very likely to be guilty in this case” is a truth claim. I’m asking if you think that juries have a consistently reliable method of arriving at such a truth.

Again: “consistently reliable” does not mean “always, infallibly correct.” It just means – surprise, surprise – consistently reliable.

EDIT: Just so it’s clear, my answer to this question, obviously, is that yes, juries do have a consistently reliable method of deciding the truth that X is likely in cases like this one. It’s called evidence-based inquiry.

If they didn’t have a consistently reliably method of determining the truth, then we couldn’t have a criminal justice system. We would never have a good reason to lock up a criminal – or an insane person, for that matter.

Oh, okay. So short answer is, you were referring to the truth about whether accused criminals did or did not do what they are accused of doing. I guess you figured that was perfectly obvious because it didn’t occur to you that “the truth” when it comes to criminal justice is not exhausted by this one little moment in the process. But it’s not. You probably just forgot about that; I’m sure you’re aware that there are a lot of other issues that must be settled somehow before the “consistently reliable” method for determining facts gets applied to determine “the truth” about how these facts are to be interpreted in the context of “criminal justice.” Yes? No?

 

[Betterave]

Sorry TJ and Anti, this is not a very good analysis:

Also, if you claim that you are “capable of misreading [your] experience of” reality, then you have to be able to know that you are misreading your experience of reality. If you know that you misread reality sometimes, this implies that you have a method of discerning what reality is and how it diverges from your misreading of it.

Your argument cannot sustain itself.

Your argument is the following, corrected as necessary:

if you claim that you are “capable of misreading [your] experience of” reality, then you have to be able to know that you -]are misreading/-] have misread your experience of reality before.

If you know that you -]misread/-] have misread reality sometimes, this implies that you -]have a method of discerning what reality is and how it diverges from your misreading of it/-] 1) have at one time believed a given proposition P was true and later decided that you were mistaken about this and that P was actually false, and 2) that you accept the law of non-contradiction.

This is your most egregious error, I’ll let the others be for now.

 

[Betterave]

I guess you really feel this kind of juvenile ad hominem idiocy is indispensable for you to really express what you’re about? It’s not at all clear what Blake’s idiot Questioner was always questioning about or why he was never capable of answering, but I wonder if it was because he was talking to an idiot who didn’t understand an answer when he heard one and who was incapable of understanding the distinctions necessary to actually answering the idiot Questioner’s questions…

And I hope you can see that that illustrates my point: you may simply lack the intellectual ability required to make your point adequately clear, or to understand when it is not adequately clear, and this because you lack the intellectual ability to understand the point that you need to respond to. It’s like some people just don’t get math; some people just don’t get the basic concepts of epistemology.

Oh, okay. So short answer is, you were referring to the truth about whether accused criminals did or did not do what they are accused of doing. I guess you figured that was perfectly obvious because it didn’t occur to you that “the truth” when it comes to criminal justice is not exhausted by this one little moment in the process. But it’s not. You probably just forgot about that; I’m sure you’re aware that there are a lot of other issues that must be settled somehow before the “consistently reliable” method for determining facts gets applied to determine “the truth” about how these facts are to be rightly interpreted in the context of “criminal justice.” Yes? No?

 

[R_Daneel]

I guess you really feel this kind of juvenile ad hominem idiocy is indispensable for you to really express what you’re about? It’s not at all clear what Blake’s idiot Questioner was always questioning about or why he was never capable of answering, but I wonder if it was because he was talking to an idiot who didn’t understand an answer when he heard one and who was incapable of understanding the distinctions necessary to actually answering the idiot Questioner’s questions…

And I hope you can see that that illustrates my point: you may simply lack the intellectual ability required to make your point adequately clear, or to understand when it is not adequately clear, and this because** you lack the intellectual ability **to understand the point that you need to respond to. It’s like some people just don’t get math; some people just don’t get the basic concepts of epistemology.

I nominate these two paragraphs for the joke of the year! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Sheeesh!

 

[tjkozinski]

Let’s cut to the chase. In history, there is only one historically credible event of a man overcoming death, of living after death, and that is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That’s why I am a Catholic, ultimately. And yes, it’s historically credible because of the many eyewitnesses, and because they are credible eyewitnesses if you examine the evidence. If there’s any candidate for the “true” religion, it’s the one founded on this event, and only the Catholic Church can trace its institution, teachings, authorities, etc., historically back to this event. There are other reasons to be Catholic, but this, to me, is the essential one.

 

[Betterave]

I nominate these two paragraphs for the joke of the year! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Sheeesh!

I wrote a reply to this but then I deleted it. Take care, RD.

 

[AntiTheist]

I frankly have no idea what in the holly heck you’re on about, and I doubt that anyone else reading this thread does.

I’d like everyone lurking on this thread to chime in – just a single post each will do – and please explain if you understand what in the heck Betterave is saying and what position he or she is offering. If you do understand, please try to explain his or her position more clearly.

If you don’t understand it, please say so.

Thank you.

 

[AntiTheist]

Let’s cut to the chase. In history, there is only one historically credible event of a man overcoming death …] it’s historically credible because of the many eyewitnesses, and because they are credible eyewitnesses if you examine the evidence.

Ok, so you are implicitly admitting that evidence-based inquiry is the best method we have to come to knowledge, for you are using this method to determine whether or not the claims of the Catholic Church are true.

Once you’ve admitted that, then we can have a discussion about whether or not the evidence you’ve presented is any good (for example, we don’t have any eyewitness accounts of Jesus or his magic…the Gospels are anonymous documents written decades at the earliest after the supposed events, and they are the collected oral legends of a cult…that’s not credible evidence of magic).

Now all of that is something we can debate, but in order to do so, you have to admit that we have a method of knowing things about the world to a reasonable degree of certainty and that we’re going to have a discussion about it.

And that’s precisely my point. Even if you decide that you want to believe that life is somehow a “dream” or something, it’s irrelevant because there’s no way we could ever discover whether or not that’s true. Claims are claims made about the world that we all apparently experience and have to be supported by evidence from the world we all apparently experience, as you yourself implicitly admit.

 

[Windfish]

What books have you read on the historicity of the NT, AntiTheist? A lot of your information seems like infidels.org-type talking points. The last atheist that set out to disprove the Resurrection became convinced that it happened. For us, it’s a "duh.’ Since it is a historically certain event.

 

[Windfish]

Btw, I’ve skimmed through this. I still don’t see how anyone has been able to even come close to refuting the “Matrix argument.” The entire point of the “Matrix argument” is to show the limits of our capacity to reason, etc. and why the faith question is unavoidable for many situations. No surprise for us. Faith and reason are both necessary for ascent to truth.

 

[AndyT_81]

AntiTheist,

What Betterave is saying (and correct me if I am wrong here, Betterave) is that your examples about building reliable computers, driving a car safely etc and the like are non sequiturs, especially in the context of a Matrix argument refutation. All that is required for success in these types of activities is consistency, not necessarily truth. People in the Matrix could make exactly the same argument you are making, yet not have knowledge (where knowledge is here loosely defined as justified true belief).

You seem to be saying that it doesn’t really matter if we are in the Matrix, as long as we can consistently do things like build reliable computers and the like. Yet, you keep trying to say that a method which searches for consistency also mostly arrives at knowledge, that is, justified true belief. But clearly, if you were able to use evidential type methods of knowledge discovery in the Matrix, you would not be arriving at justified true belief (which is what knowledge is commonly defined as), rather only justified belief (beliefs which are consistent but not true).

Anyway, as a lurker, that is my 2 cents. Hope it makes sense.

 

[tjkozinski]

Antitheist:

I think, if you are indeed a truth seeker above all else, you need to take a step back from your own present opinions and convictions. You tend to jump to conclusions too quickly, as it seems to me, and you jump in ways that are not derived from what others are actually saying, but from your own categories and habits of discourse which you impose on others words and judgments.

For example, just because I said that there is some evidence that makes it credible to believe in the resurrection does not mean I am saying that I believe in the resurrection solely on credible evidence, or that the evidence proves the event. Truths in the realm of the supernatural can only be shown rationally not to be irrational, but they cannot be proved rationally. Nevertheless, one can know with absolute certainty that the resurrection occurred. In fact, what I know by the infused virtue of Faith is more certain than what I know by my own unaided reasoning, because the former is based upon God’s infallible authority, and the latter my own fallible mind. Okay, so how do I know something with God’s own stamp of epistemological certitude? I wonder if you are really open to understanding that, or, if I tried to explain it, if you would just attack it and mock it and dismiss it in a facile manner because you don’t presently understand it. I wonder if you really are open to new information–you come off as a staunch conservative in this respect, and not very philosophical or Socratic. Saying that you only accept things that are empirically verifiable is, as I said in my first post, not a empirically verifiable epistemological first principle, so you need some other defense against truths that make you uncomfortable.

So, I say you should step back a bit, because in order to come to see any truths, whether physical, metaphysical, spiritual, or moral, you need to have a philosophically disposed mind, meaning that you are open to being corrected, and open to new evidence that shatters your categories of thinking and belief. I don’t think you are really open to having your categories shattered, for you tend tendentiously to interpret what I and others are saying to make it correspond to your comfortable categories of thought, even though what many of us are saying does not correspond to your, well, ontologically pre-shrunken categories. Your huge misinterpretation of and secularist-cliche-like response to my resurrection argument is a case in point.

You might consider that your own way of thinking might be the one that is fundamentalist, anti-rational, reactionary, dogmatic, superstitious, out-of-date, and psychologically motivated. Perhaps some “religious” people have these characteristics too, but perhaps thou does protest too much against them.

Why don’t you try listening to what I am saying without being in attack and self-justification mode? If what any of us are saying is true, if Catholicism is true, how are you going to discover this if you rest in categories of thought that prevent the truth of it from ever becoming clear to you? Perhaps you are in flatland, and Catholicism is three-dimensional? If so, you need to develop a third dimension. At least, you should try-on a third dimension just in case.

 

[Areopagite]

Sorry for the embarrassing delay (particularly to R Daneel and AntiTheist). I hope my comments don’t tread on issues that have already been discussed in excruciating detail.

Not exactly. They do believe that God can be influenced by their prayers. That there is a better chance of recovery if they pray. And that belief is unshaken no matter how many counter-examples are brought up. This is where the difference lies.

But nonetheless, it is no proof that prayer doesn’t do the thing it’s supposed to do (i.e. ask God for something) even if the request(s) isn’t ever granted. A child could ask his dad for a roller-coaster a hundred thousand times, but just because the dad says no every time, doesn’t mean “asking your dad” doesn’t influence your dad in some way. I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying here.

A scientist might be devastated if his pet-peeve hypothesis is proven wrong, but eventually he is obliged to abandon it - if he is really a scientist.

Now, later on you say that “proofs” only fall under the deductive sciences (and I think you’re right). But you seem to suggest that this example deals with an inductive science, in which case this scientist would not be proven wrong, right? Am I wrong? (this is somewhat important later on in my post)

Faith-based attitude is immune to logic and reason.

I don’t know exactly what you mean by this. First of all, I believe that if a faith claims something that breaks the principle of non-contradiction, then that faith is wrong. So it’s not immune to logic and reason in that respect. (and consequently, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and several branches of Protestantism go out the window since all of them believe that the God and/or the universe can perform logical contradictions)

But I would say that legitimate faiths (i.e. faiths that do not suffer self-contradictions) are certainly immune against logical attacks. They cannot be disproved (in the sense you use the word proof, i.e. with abstract sciences). And I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

Now, are you saying something particularly significant that “reason” (not simply “logic”) has in regard to faith-based attitudes? If so, what is it?

You see, if you say that a given “faith-based attitude is immune to logic and reason” then that indicates that such a given faith-based attitude could be correct. I don’t see this as a criticism of a faith-based attitude.

Faith-based beliefs are not shaken (nor stirred - a la James Bond), no matter how many times they are proved to be wrong. And that is the precise definition of blind faith.

Well, why did you say that faith-based attitudes are immune to logic and reason if in fact they sometimes can be proved wrong.

This is again a different thing. You can learn the principles and you can build the necessary equipment and ascertain for yourself that the claim is correct. To rely on others (astronomers in this case) is simply an epistemological shortcut. You do not wish to invest all the time and effort, so you do have faith in the result of others. And this kind of faith is reasonable. You trust the opinion of others, not because they are authorities, rather because their authority is based upon their ability to demonstrate what they say. And yet again, this is missing from theological claims. Not even the Pope can come forth and demonstrate what he believes. It is a self-proclaimed and empty authority.

This is dodging the obvious fact that you really don’t know that astronomers (and other human scientists) can really demonstrate what they say. The only way to reassure yourself of that fact is to actually see the demonstration and hence no longer have faith in what they say (because by then you would just know the truth of what they say rather than trust them). So, you have no clearly shown why the Catholic faith and the faith you put in the word of a scientist are relevantly different from an epistemological standpoint.

Also, when you say, “You trust the opinion of others, not because they are authorities” … what does that mean? Does that mean that astronomers are not an authority on astronomy. Or are you saying they ARE authorities on astronomy but that you don’t trust them on that basis but rather because they are able to demonstrate their astronomy (but then of course, how do you know they CAN demonstrate it). However, if they are able to demonstrate it, then wouldn’t that make them an authority on it? I’m just confused what you mean by “authority.” (but this may be completely off the topic)

 

[Areopagite]

Not relevant, since these claim pertain to the past, and since the past events do not exist any more, they cannot be subject to the same criteria.

This is quite a claim.

In fact, however, all claims pertain to the past in some way (that is quite a claim too, but I’ll stick to it for now). A scientist who claims anything about the nature of gravity is entirely basing his claims off past events. If you say, “No, those events don’t exist anymore” and discard it, then you can’t have any scientific knowledge. Events in the past may not exist anymore, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t have knowledge of past events. And we’re talking about what constitutes actual knowledge and what does not constitute actual knowledge. So, knowledge of the past IS relevant in this discussion.

Hence, let me repeat what I said: there is some knowledge (that is not self-evident knowledge) you can have that others may not have because you experienced it and they did not (and because you cannot demonstrate/prove it either) … but that doesn’t mean that it’s not knowledge for you. Likewise, the Catholic faith is that way. So, just because the Catholic faith cannot be proved (and is not self-evident) does not mean it’s not legitimate knowledge for the person who possesses it.

Nonsensical positions (like solipsism) are not worth to contemplate. Their proponents are not worth to talk to.

Why are the nonsensical? It seems that the basic principles you are using to attack the Catholic faith are the same principles a solipsist can use to defend his position.

OK. But you still say that the axioms of mathematics are faith based. And that is the idea I am attacking. The axioms of mathematics are self-evident. They cannot possibly be anything else.

Even though they are self-evident, why does this disqualify it from being based on faith? You need to provide a definition of faith in order to convince me of this.

Also, knowledge about the past is neither self-evident nor necessarily demonstrable but it can still be known. In fact, you really can’t have knowledge about the present, since the present is an infinitesimal, ever-changing point in time that we really can’t meaningfully and mentally latch on to. Our so-called “knowledge of the present” is really “knowledge of the (very recent) past.” So, if you reject the Catholic faith on the basis that it is neither self-evident nor demonstrable, then you must reject knowledge of the past and present … yeah, and future too.

Good starting point. A proof (which is only applicable to the abstract sciences) it the logically correct deductive method to show that the proposition is the corollary of the axioms.

I think that’s a pretty good definition.

In the natural sciences we speak of demonstration, and here the method is to show that the predictions based upon the hypothesis conform with the actual state of affairs. Neither of these require any faith.

Err. Well, at the very least, I think you need faith that you’re not hallucinating about perceiving what the state of affairs are.

If you hypothesize that hitting you thumb with a hammer will result in pain, all you have to do is try it. There is no need for faith to verify that the experiment worked, hitting your thumb is painful.

And not to be the most annoying person ever, but you need to have faith that you are actually hitting your thumb and that you’re not imaging it all.

If you would hypothesize the opposite (hitting your finger is not painful), again, all your have to do is try it, and the result will give you 100% Certesian knowledge, that your hypothesis was incorrect. Absolutely no faith is needed.

Would you really say that “hitting your finger is painful” is a hypothesis … or can it be knowledge? If it is knowledge, then it is a knowledge that requires faith in the idea that, for example, the laws of physics and the workings of your nervous system will remain constant in some way. I would at least say that you would have faith that “hitting your finger is painful” would be true. And yes there is a way to verify it, but you need faith to accept that it will still be painful the next time you try.

And, you know, the Catholic faith is not TOO different from this. Eventually, there will be a way to verify the truth of the Catholic faith. And that will be the afterlife.

 

[Areopagite]

Your parenthetical remark gives the game away – what makes you think that this knowledge actually has been “imputed in your mind directly by God”?

I’m sorry my parentheses led you to that impression. I did that so as to be more diplomatic and less forceful in my point. But in answer to your question, I cannot answer that. You see, there is, only this quote that can suffice: “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.”

It’s kind of like a person trying to explain to another who has been blind from birth what the color red looks like. So, I’m sorry, I can’t explain it.

Of course it can be. I’ve said: it’s possible that this world is a consistent Matrix created by a computer to dupe me while the machines drain my life-force. It’s also possible that this world is a consistent Matrix created by Zippy the leprechaun while I am his prisoner in the Land of the Leprechauns.

But nothing would lead us to think that either of those things is true.

If you say those things are possible, why isn’t it possible that some people might have some reason to think those things are true? You assume that everyone is privy to the same basic knowledge. And that’s obviously not true, or at the very least an assertion that cannot be defended.

Am I missing something here?

My point is this: if this world that we experience is consistent – and if there is no way to determine that it is, in fact, a Matrix – then we have absolutely no reason to think that there’s some other reality.

Though we can’t figure out whether this is the Matrix or not by our own power, we nonetheless may figure out that it IS the matrix if we are saved from it, like Neo was by the Resistance (if I may take the analogy thus far). In a similar way, God may give us the knowledge regarding the truths of Christianity, though we cannot achieve it by ourselves.

Now, I may be missing your point, and, if so, I apologize.

Thus, when we talk about reality, we’re talking about the consistent reality that we experience, whatever its metaphysical status.

I don’t know what you mean by “consistent.” People don’t share the exact same experience, and so in that way experience is not consistent. Or do you mean something else by that?

I do believe our ability to perceive reality as it really is (“reality” here defined as the consistent world revealed to us by our senses).

This, of course, is a very divergent definition of “reality.” What you are doing here is essentially equating “reality” with “sense data.” However, if you are implying that sense data is merely information regarding an actually existing world apart from the senses, then you have entered into metaphysics and thus reject your entire argument. But since you aren’t doing that, you are merely equating reality with sense data. And I, as well as most people, would say sense data is NOT reality but a perception of reality. If you think that too, then stop trying to separate sense data and the world that the senses perceive, because the only way the world we perceive can be separate from our senses is if that world has metaphysical existence apart from the senses. You see what I’m saying?

But even given that, you still have not done away with the necessity of faith. How do you know that your senses are actually operating at any given time? What if you’re dreaming? Your senses wouldn’t be operating then, even though they may appear to be. You have to have faith that what you’re perceiving is new incoming sense information, rather than images in your imagination. So, even with your proposed innovative epistemological reconstruction of real-world knowledge … faith is still necessary … I’m sorry to say.

But people also perceive the contents of their own minds, and they’re not very good at distinguishing the two.

A good example of this is proofreading errors: when reading over their own writings – especially when it’s fresh in their minds – people tend to miss their typographical errors. The reason for this is that they’re not paying attention to what’s on the page: their mind is actually perceiving what it expects to be there – they’re seeing a pattern of expectation rather than reality.

I’m not sure how this helps your position. It actually makes it worse. Aside from the possibility that our senses may not perceive metaphysical reality (i.e. reality correctly defined), you have even cast doubt that our mind may not even perceive our sense data correctly. How do you know that your mind is correctly seeing all the sense data at any given time? You can’t. You need faith. Sorry, but you do.

But there actually is a typo on the bloody page, one that they would see if they would pay attention or get someone else to help them. And there actually is a page there – it’s a page and not a hamburger.

Well, it’s the image of a page, right? We’re not sure if the page actually exists, right?

That’s what I mean by “the world in your head” versus “the world outside of your head.”

To say that reality is “sense data” and call that “the world outside of your head” is simply misguiding. Last I checked, sense data exists inside our head, no? You should call a spade a spade and say, “Reality is unknowable” and that “the world outside your head is unknowable.” Right?

 

[Areopagite]

When I say there’s “actually” a page there, all I mean to say is that our senses report the consistent existence of a page there, a page that has marks on it that we can be wrong about, that we can discover that we are wrong about by investigating the world outside of our heads.

And yet sometimes we don’t interpret our sense data correctly. How do we know when we are and when we aren’t? It’s a matter of faith.

Because when I say “reality,” I’m talking about the consistent world that my senses report to me and that other people appear to share, whatever its “ultimate metaphysical status” happens to be.

Once again, if you distinguish “the world” from “the senses” then you are giving that “world” a kind of existence apart from the senses, no? That is, you are entering into metaphysics. If you’re not distinguishing the two, then “the world” is the same thing as “sense data” … in which case, the senses don’t necessarily “report” anything, but rather just make stuff up for all we know. The senses ARE the world rather than report about the world. However, you can take the leap of faith that the world and the senses are different. I, for what it’s worth, have done such a thing.

It’s not an “intuition” – it’s a definition. I define “reality” to be the consistent world reported by the senses and apparently experienced by others as well.

People can redefine words all the time, but it ultimately doesn’t help their argument. I can redefine “Atheist” to be the same thing as “Christian” and thus say, “No. You are a Christian … ha!” But that really doesn’t help anything, does it?

If it turns out to be a dream, then I’ll adjust my definitions accordingly, but I can find no indication that it’s a dream.

And if it turns out that there is no God, I’ll adjust mine as well.

You see, you are basing your definitions off a kind of faith … namely, faith in the idea that you are not dreaming. You yourself admit the possibility that you are dreaming, but you have faith that you are not, and upon that faith, you base your definitions.

Once again, faith is obviously necessary for any kind of knowledge.

This is totally different than faith, which I define as the acceptance of a claim about that consistent world reported by my senses and apparently experienced by others without sufficient evidence.

So, accepting the claim that the earth is 93 million miles away from the sun is accepted without sufficient evidence right? Unless of course, you happened to do (or see) the necessary demonstration yourself. Chances are you haven’t. Chances are you accept most scientific claims without seeing the demonstrations yourself. Is this acceptance of such scientific claims done without sufficient evidence? Perhaps. Depends how you define evidence (a definition I have asked for numerous times from atheists on this forum without ever getting an answer). At the very least, however, you must admit that you accept most scientific claims on faith. And this proves, once again, the necessity of faith.

For the zillionth time: When I say things like “the real world,” I’m not making a claim about the consistent world revealed by my senses (I"m not claiming “It’s not the Matrix”)…I’m labeling that world.

Well, that’s a really messed up definition. You can do us the favor and be less confusing (and less divergent from the definition accepted by common usage) and say simply that “We cannot know reality at all” or something to that effect.

Your knowledge on this subject appears to be limited, yes.

Was that an attempt to suggest that you have evidence disproving my claim? Sorry, I can’t read between the lines sometimes. If you have evidence to contradict me (and prove my knowledge to be limited to the point of being incorrect), please do so. If not, then I think my point stands. In fact, I’m quite sure it does.

Right. In the same way that one “converts” to believing in psychic powers or in Bigfoot or in Hindu gods or in alien abductions and lots of other nutty stuff by virtue of their “experience plus the application of reason.”

Yeah. That’s exactly my point. Once again, I don’t believe that the belief in Bigfoot or alien abductions are “nutty” (which, I take it, is a synonym of “false” … right? Correct me if I’m wrong). I even believe that there are Hindu gods, but I believe them to be demons. Now, if you have ways to disprove these things, then show the evidence, otherwise you have no case to condemn them with any kind of certainty that I’m aware of.

But as I pointed out above – when talking about the relatively common experience of proofreading errors – people make mistakes about reality. So the question before us is this: is there a consistently reliable way to determine whether or not a claim about reality should be accepted?

And surprise, surprise, what do you know, there is! It’s called – break out the trumpets – evidence-based inquiry. It’s through this method that our proofreader can determine that his writing contains a typo, and it’s through this method that those of us who are not gullible saps can determine that psychics can’t really see the future or talk to the dead.

Evidence-based inquiry relies on the mind’s ability to interpret the senses correctly. However, you have cited examples where the mind fails to do this. Hence, evidence-based inquiry is not a bulletproof method of determining the truth about claim about reality. You first need faith in your mind’s ability to interpret reality before you can accept evidence-based inquiry. This is pretty obvious if you think about it.

 

[Areopagite]

And it’s clear that you agree with all of this (unless you’re actually completely out of your mind, a supposition which I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt about): you yourself don’t go around believing in fairies and psychics and UFO abductions (complete with brutal probings that always seem to be a component in those weirdo fantasies). It’s only when you’re backed into a corner that you have to hem and haw and say “Gee golly whiz! That suff could all be true, I just don’t have the experience!”

I believe that fairies and UFO abductions may be true, and I think you believe that they can be true too. And I certainly believe in psychic powers, depending on how you define it. And I say all this not because I’m backed into a corner, but because I actually believe this. I think this is ample evidence to make a strong case that alien abductions take place. If you deny this, you have not done the research.

I know Catholics who believe in fairies and aliens, and I know Catholics who disbelieve them strongly. I suspend judgment. But at the very least, I believe they might exist. If I do see some aliens and fairies (which some people claim to have done), then I will believe in them. I think this is a completely sensible mindset.

This is a perfect example of what I mean when I say that matrix-mongers walk around in a fog and that they worship ignorance.

I would actually claim you are worshipping ignorance, since you think it is irrelevant whether our senses actually perceive a world outside our mind or not (i.e. a world that exists whether we perceive it or not).

If your “philosophy” has got you so mixed up that you can’t know basic things, like the fact that “psychics” can’t really see the future or talk to the dead, then nothing I say is ever going to convince you otherwise.

I don’t believe psychics can see the future or talk to the dead (unless, of course, they are assisted by supernatural entities). I do believe that other psychic phenomena, like telepathy and telekinesis, may be possible.

Yes. Well, nutjobs and the gullible, of course.

But you have not shown why such people are nutjobs or gullible. All I see is name-calling, and it doesn’t help to elucidate your point.

I have no doubt that many – if not most – of the poor saps who are duped into believing in psychics believe in them because they have experienced (or been the victims of, depending on how you look at it) a “cold reading” at the hands of a psychic.

Okay, your tirade about psychics didn’t answer my question.

The fact is, you cannot disprove that there is, for example, such a thing as Bigfoot. Furthermore, if one sees Bigfoot (and maybe even shoots him and dissects him and sees that it truly is a kind of half-man and half-ape thing), and yet, later on, loses the evidence (in a fire, for example), it doesn’t change the fact that he saw Bigfoot, even though he can’t reproduce the evidence.

Your argument seems to suggest that such a person must disbelieve in Bigfoot since he can’t demonstrate it to other people. I submit that that’s absurd.

But when you start pretending that there is no real world and that maybe everything boils down to faith, you run into nonsense like your entire argument.

According to your definition of reality, the Matrix-mongers never denied that there was a real world. They never denied that there was “sense data” (or did they?). What they brought into question was whether our senses perceive a world that exists apart from the senses. You, instead of refuting them, have simply said, “It doesn’t matter.” Far from disproving the Matrix-mongers, you have settled for an ignorance greater than theirs.

Honestly, you simply can’t redefine “reality” and hope that solves all your problems. Redefining terms from their commonly accepted meanings will get you nowhere. Surely, you must know that it is a classic tactic among pseudo-intellectuals, right?

In any case, I never doubted that there was a real world (either in terms of your definition or the real definition of “reality”). I have faith there is a real world. You, however, do not. You don’t even care.

If I hadn’t read trash like this before, I might even be a little disgusted by it this time around.

So … you’re saying that you’re not disgusted? Why, thank you. I’ll take that as a compliment.