In a message dated 05/12/00 15:58:22 GMT Standard Time, Bertvan@aol.com
writes:
> I usually don't try to psychoanalyze why other people believe as they do.
Puts you in a minority of one then :)
> Their reasons are as valid to them as my reasons for my beliefs. This is
> merely an attempt to point out to psychoanalyzing materialists the futility
> of such efforts.
> Of course, merely pointing out a
> person's *motivation* does not mean that his claims are false.
> But, if you show that they *are* false, that his arguments are
> invalid and or based on false premises, and he *still* insists on
> his claim of a materialistic universe, then something non-cognitive is
going
> on, and it is well that we be aware of this.
I agree. This unfortunately applies both ways.
It is interesting that you are absolutely assuming your arguments
are true. Have you ever considered you might be projecting here ?
The other statement is "materialists". I don't know how many
"evolutionists" here are materialists, but I would suspect not
as many as you think. The words are not synonyms as many
creationist/ID people think.
> We see the same pattern repeated many times.
This is true. I think that at least 99% of the accusations of
psychological problems are dragged out are when the accuser
can't think of an answer.
I would comment that the people who in my experience suffer
from this "absolutely rock solid belief" problem are
fundamentalists.
> Materialists have all had their
> arguments shredded right in front of their eyes (figuratively
> speaking), but not a one of them has said, "Oh, yes, I see
> clearly now. I will go see if I can find something better or give
> up my claims."
I haven't read anything of yours that I view as spectacularly
convincing. I think it says an awful lot about YOU that you
think your arguments apparently are flawless, and that you
ought to think about this more.
> Instead, they become "Stepford Intellectuals,"
> robots for the cause, re-iterating arguments that have long
> since rotted in the bright light of observable facts and clear
> logic, sometimes making bizarre attempts at patching them
> up (without removing the basic fallacies).
Yep, I go for projection here. I haven't seen anyone address
the big hole in the "design filter" ; namely, what happens when
you apply it to the designer.
> The basic error is the attempt to make matter primary, and matter (the
> entirety of
> whatever exists) a secondary that is either subject to, or
> knowable by their own mind, *without* the need
> for independent *cognitive* validation. But, since the pre-
> conceptual realization that matter is primary is never
> really killed or fully suppressed, the person is (pre-
> conceptually) aware that the beliefs he has imposed on reality
> by means of his mere choice and feelings are not reliable and
> may be crucially wrong.
I think this is a long winded way of saying "will not accept my
claims for the existence of a designer/creator/god because is
not open to the possibility". But it's difficult to tell. There is, in
this whole post, a quite stunning lack of self awareness.
> Thus, he is in a state of anxiety about
> his relationship to the world, a state that he tries to assuage by
> ever more diligent faith in his *chosen* (not cognitively
> validated) beliefs.
You see, this is a much better description of a theist ; it would
be more accurate to say that parents imprint a belief rather than
it is chosen, perhaps.
> Because he is in a cognitive quandary about all the basics of
> philosophy (or would be if he considered them at all), and
> because his mind is largely furnished with more or less blindly-
> accepted conventional materialistic beliefs, he has no rational idea that
any
> purpose in life exists or what it might be.
But there doesn't have to be one. There might be ; but not simply
because you like it to be like that.
> But, his anxiety and
> confusion drives him to deny any purpose.
No ; I think the total lack of support for any global world consuming
purposes is what drives him.
> Having stocked his
> own mind with philosophical nonsense, and being
> psychologically deeply insecure,
Definitely projection :)
> he will normally seek something more stable, more reliable,
> something as pitiful as himself to vest his happiness in.
I'm sorry Bert, but this has to be the funniest thing I have
read this week. Are you *sure* you aren't an atheist taking
the mickey ?
Psychological insecurity and desire for stability
reliability, something to vest his happiness in ? What does
this sound like ?
> Commonly, it will be his supposed
> ability to understand the universe, but not always. Some
> people will make remarks like, "I believe in God but I
> believe everything that happens has a materialistic cause."
Anyone done this ? I haven't seen it ?
> -- by
> which they mean a purpose determined by Homo sapiens
> or the laws of physics.
???
> (Quantum physics is best passed over quickly.) Some will
> take up causes such as professional Darwin defenders.
Is there such a thing ? There is a lady (is it Eugenie Scott ?) who
is perhaps could be described as such ?
One thing for sure ; there are an awful lot of professional
Darwin attackers.
> But, in all of these cases, such people are seeking the security they
cannot
> find in a universe with unanswerable questions. They cannot live with such
> insecurity.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Gosh, Bert, where do you think these people might go ? I stand corrected.
The above thing is the SECOND funniest thing I have seen this week.
> Why is it not logically possible? Because they are *seeking* this
> concept of materialism to satisfy *their* need to deny a purpose in life.
Alright, the third.
> They fear the existence of something they might not understand and thus are
> driven to declare nothing incomprehensible can exist.
Maybe the fourth.
> Why does it *matter* that unanswerable questions might exist ?
I don't think it does.
> Clearly, it matters because one already *has* a need to live in a
> predictable universe.
So one creates a superbeing (or designer !) to whom one can
attach all these unpredictabilities.
> This is a serious philosophical error. It is not correctable by
> means of a little tweaking here and there. It puts the person in
> a situation that is impossible to resolve without abandoning the
> situation entirely and starting over.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I must keep this.
> But few will start over. Instead, they remain not-so-blissfully
> driven to defend materialism.
> If they find what they take to be a purpose in life (i.e their own mastery
> of the universe), any threat to that belief may
> very well be taken as a threat to their philosophy, or,
> psychologically and usually subconsciously, a threat to their
> very lives (because they have invested themselves such faith in their own
> intellectual superiority , and cannot imagine a life without it).
*It* being what ?
> Since the person has already given up reason in a *quite*
> fundamental way in the process of accepting the notion that
> faith in their own intellectual processes is a magical way of knowing
things
> or a magical way of making the world match one's beliefs, it is a
relatively
> small step to give it up with respect to any scientific issue that seems
> to involve their imagined lack of purpose in life.
(Sorry, I'm now rolling around on the floor).
> If "ID" (or
> anything else) seems to threaten them (i.e., their " superior intellectuall
> processes"),
> they will automatically (or very nearly so) adopt virtually *any*
> rationalization that seems to support their view of their view that purpose
> in life cannot exist.
(Coronary)
> Thus, one may come across Darwinists proselytizers who openly
> admit that all they have going for their belief materialsim is faith, but,
> since they have faith in materialism (and, of course, faith in the
> materialism is faith), it doesn't bother them that people of other
> religions *also* have faith, but in a quite different God than materialism.
> Why?
(Another one)
> Because, like those others, they have faith that *their* faith is
> sound, while the faith of the others is wrong (and, of course,
> that's exactly how the *others* feel about *their* faith as well).
Oh, are we developing some self awareness here ?
> The *absolute* absurdity of such a position seems almost
> *never* to sink in, because they have faith that it's *not* absurd
> when *they* do it (which, of course, is the *same* faith those
> *others* have in *their* faith).
Seems not.
> With reason *this* far gone, it is no wonder that materialists,
> and the like are willing to forego it with respect to something as
> relatively unimportant as science, if doing so will appear to
> protect or promote their "purpose," their precious world-view
> that gives their lives (in their view) some sort of "feeling of ability to
> control the universe."
Well, I can only hope this is a parody. If so , 10 out of 10.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 06 2000 - 05:29:54 EST