Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
No Major Disagreement

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aurino Souza on May 2, 2002 16:11:47 UTC

I'm sorry, but if I told you what the drug is you would shift the debate to whether the drug really does what I say it does, which to me is entirely beside the point. The point is that I have a question I can't answer, and what I said about God and drugs is just one example of the scenario I have in mind. But I can't tell you what the scenario is either, because I already know what you think about it: you'll think I must be lying. I know because that's what I thought of people who said the same thing. Trouble is, when it happens to you "I must be lying" doesn't work as an explanation.

Of course, having a rough idea of what's true tends to help facilitate the finding of said food.

I can buy that, but the problem is, what about "truths" whose knowledge would actually be detrimental to survival? Nihilism, for instance?

would you see anything wrong about someone believing in pink elephants after frying their brain on LSD?

Of course I would, but that is not the issue. The issue is, how do you know your brain has not been fried already? Who says oxygen or water are not as "harmful" to your thinking as LSD?

And there is no answer, not now, or if I took the drug myself. Experience is subjective.

Now we're talking! If truth comes from experience, and experience is subjective, then a skeptic is just a person who never had a particular kind of experience. But that is not how skeptics see themselves, they tend to think their skepticism is justified by the lack of evidence, when in reality it works the other way around.

That's why I try to limit my "beliefs" to as few as possible.

I think that's extremely healthy, and I'm not trying to promote beliefs of any kind. Belief is as silly as skepticism, it's pseudo-knowledge in absence of evidence.

That is, the drug would force me into having faith apart from a reason to.

No, what the drug would do is force you to accept as real something you currently believe to be unreal. Like pink elephants.

I am naturally adverse to that.

We all are. We like our current position, it's very comfortable, and we will do everything in our power to remain in it.

By the way, the drug is called ketamine.

Have fun,

Aurino

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins