Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: July 06, 2015 10:53AM
Henry Bemis.."Human beings make inferences every day based upon their experiences, including experiences that justify an inference of the existence of a reality outside of themselves."
Justify? Really? How can that word be "justifiably" used to infer your conclusion?
COMMENT: When we see everyday objects in space and time; e.g. trees, cars, other people, etc., we assume that those objects really exist independent of ourselves, and are not just imaginative fictions. This inference is deemed justified solely because that is the nature of human intuition, and such an assumption allows us to assign meaning to our existence, through "interactions" with such objects. But, of course, it could all just be mental, as Berkeley maintained.
____________________________________________
In what way can that be verifiably tested, repeated, learned by the average Joe and used by all humans not just those who created an experience inside their own imaginations?
COMMENT: The existence of the external world cannot be tested independent of mind itself. It is inferred by the five human senses. We assume these senses are "triggered" by external objects. However, we also know that any one of the five senses can be "hallucinatory." Thus, why not all of it? What this shows is that science itself is based upon an assumption of external reality, which in turn is grounded solely on the intuitions of the human mind. That is why famous scientists, such as Max Planck, sometimes refer to science itself as ultimately based upon faith.
__________________________________________
Not one of us can say that we can't imagine voices outside ourselves. But that's just it. Humans can imagine till the cows come home but reason keeps us from following every imaginary thought.
COMMENT: Yes, we have a regularity of our conscious experience, such that when this regularity is disturbed, we can differentiate between what we call "reality" and what we call "imagination." But sometimes this distinction is blurred. One example is in "spiritual" or "paranormal" experiences where experiences might be empirically powerful and consistent with a worldview that accommodates a broader scope to reality.
____________________________________________
It is the UN-justified assertions that the imaginations of men can be justified if we use words that pretend to justify unjustifiable imaginations that get my goat now that the critical thinking switch has been thrown in my head.
COMMENT: You have to make a distinction between "imagination" and "experience." Pure imagination that conjures up entities out of whole cloth, such as unicorns, does not justify the existence of unicorns in the "real world" of physical objects. Yet they remain mental objects of imagination. Contrast that with entities that are inferred from experience, not from pure imagination. This could be unusual things such as ghosts or God, or quite ordinary things such as an intruder that is inferred from a downstairs noise. The scope of what we allow as entities to be inferred from experience is exactly what makes up our worldview. But there is no logical limitation that pinpoints "justification"; so long as there is a reasonable nexus between our experience and the entity we infer from it. And, with some experiences, it is per se unreasonable to infer entities whose existence is not otherwise readily apparent.
_____________________________________________
A couple of hundred thousand years of thinking humans and we just can't seem to nail down the art of communication with the supernatural. It's in the toast, it's a sign in the clouds, it's the shape of a Hubble space picture, its a seeping chemical from a statue, its grandma seeing dead grandpa in the temple, it's voices from idols. Good grief!
COMMENT: Yes. I share your frustration. But, there is a distinction between inferring Jesus from toast, a cloud, or a Hubble space picture, etc. from the "seeing" of dead grandpa (wherever it might be) Although, of course, such reports should not be trusted per se, they represent direct experience. Moreover, in some such cases, there are objective facts that support the experience; for example when more than one persons witnesses the event, or when the circumstances otherwise suggest credibility. In any event, you cannot dismiss such experiences out of hand simply because they are exceptional. Like anything else, they need to be evaluated independently of our materialist prejudice that everything in the world is based upon clearly defined an known physical laws. That assumption is simply false on scientific grounds.
__________________________________________
From the most innocent of experiences that make tears roll down in a touching story of a loved one who has passed to the murderous experiences of others using that same imagination to kill and destroy the source is the same. Human imagination.
COMMENT: Human imagination is powerful, no doubt. As humans we therefore need to make careful distinctions between imagination and "reality." But to use "imagination" as a fall back explanation for all things paranormal, or all things religious, is both unreasonable, and not justified on scientific grounds.
______________________________________
Imagination can be manipulated not only by others but by ourselves. Recognizing and understanding ourselves and how powerful our imaginations are for good and bad is paramount in learning how to use imagination for good and keeping them from running amok.
COMMENT: Fully agree. But then, when is a powerful religious experience explained by imagination "running amok," and when should it be taken as referring to a reality that is beyond normal human understanding. That is the difficult question. And to suggest that just because such an experience is "spiritual" or "religious" in character it should be dismissed begs the question as to the validity and meaning of such experiences, including whether such experiences suggest a worldview that is beyond our ordinary experience.