[MD] Confirming the existence of God?

[Ant McWatt]

Mark Smith stated to Mary on January 17th (in the context of faith
regarding God and science respectively): 

My argument is this:  If I read in a book that God exists, I can accept
that on faith.  If I read in a book that plate tectonics created the
continents as they are, I can accept that on faith.  I do not need to personally
confirm either.  However, the great thing about a belief in God is that it can be
confirmed since it is a feeling.

 

Ant McWatt asked January 18th:

How do you know this “feeling” doesn’t instead indicate that you’ve gone insane, 
been affected by drugs (legal or otherwise), been hypnotized through social 
conditioning, suffered a stroke, been subject to carbon monoxide poisoning or 
even some combination of these?



Mark replied January 19th:

Hi Ant,

Those combinations could also be used as a reason for my feelings. Reason is 
simply a method by which we feel comfortable with things.  Those reasons are 
not my choice.  Reasons can be extended indefinitely, reasons for reasons.  
Why would those things you mention make me feel the way I do?  If it is in the 
synapses, why would they have that effect? At some point one has to stop.  
Perhaps I stop earlier than you would.  That only means that I have reached 
comfort earlier.

Insanity is just a state of mind, like watching a movie is.



Ant McWatt replies:

Mark,

Thank you for your response.  There is some good rhetoric there.



Firstly, you said:

Those combinations could also be used as a reason for my feelings…
Those reasons are not my choice. Reasons can be extended indefinitely,
reasons for reasons.  


I say:

Doesn’t the possibility of these other reasons indicate that a belief
in God can’t be confirmed by a feeling alone? 

Moreover, if these other reasons can be “extended” indefinitely, shouldn’t
that give rise to further caution on your part on what is exactly being
confirmed here? 

 

You said:

Reason is simply a method by which we feel comfortable with things.
 

I say:

Unfortunately, this type of definition doesn’t make me feel comfortable
as I think it confuses biological patterns with intellectual patterns.  For instance, 
taking recreational drugs (or, as happened to Lila towards the end of Pirsig’s 
second book, going insane) could also be said to be “simply a method by which 
we feel comfortable with things”!  

To clarify things (at least when discussing the MOQ), I think it would be better to 
say that reason is (just) an intellectual pattern that improves the quality of our 
life by directing it more efficiently.  Or a definition more along those lines anyway.

 

You said:

Why would those things you mention make me feel the way I do?  If
it is in the synapses, why would they have that effect?  

 
I say (a bit flippantly):  Ask a neurologist.

 

You said:

At some point one has to stop.  Perhaps I [would] stop earlier
than you would.  That only means that I have reached comfort earlier.

 
I say: And/or reached self-delusion earlier!



You finally said: Insanity is just a state of mind, like watching a movie is.
 

I conclude:  

Nice quote.  I think Pirsig defines insanity as a set of intellectual and 
social patterns in a particular individual thought of as low quality by the 
society that they live in.  In other words, you can’t ever be insane if
you’re the sole occupant on a desert island!

 

 

.



 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/