Religion is Placebo

Mr.Badham · Post by **Mr.Badham** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:30 pm

Placebo administered through injection is more effective than placebo administered through pill form.

Placebo administered by someone dressed as a doctor is more effective than placebo administered by someone dressed as a nurse.

By that rationale, placebo administered by what you believe to be the creator of the universe could explain any personal experience you have ever had with said creator.

It doesn't matter that an actor dressed like a doctor injected you with a saline solution, you'll feel better. With that said, tell me something that has happened to you personally, that I cannot explain away as placebo.

And here's some homework for you. If you haven't had any experiences with the creator, ask yourself why you believe in him. It might be someone else's experience with placebo.

AquinasD · Post by **AquinasD** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:34 am

Goat wrote:Let me modify that statement for clarity. It makes a truth claim about the physical and objective world.

Is your claim about such, such? You haven't answered my own request for the evidence of your position. You are obliged to provide it, I believe.

.... the for the physical and objective world 'god is a necessary being'.

and facts should be able to be verified.

Is that a fact?

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:05 am

AquinasD wrote:
Goat wrote:Let me modify that statement for clarity. It makes a truth claim about the physical and objective world.
Is your claim about such, such? You haven't answered my own request for the evidence of your position. You are obliged to provide it, I believe.

.... the for the physical and objective world 'god is a necessary being'.

and facts should be able to be verified.
Is that a fact?

No, it is a definition.. not a fact.

If you can't verifiy a claim, how do you know it's a fact?

AquinasD · Post by **AquinasD** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:18 pm

Goat wrote:No, it is a definition.. not a fact.

Is it a fact that it is a definition?

If you can't verifiy a claim, how do you know it's a fact?

Yes, really, how could you?

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:54 pm

AquinasD wrote:
Goat wrote:No, it is a definition.. not a fact.
Is it a fact that it is a definition?

If you can't verifiy a claim, how do you know it's a fact?
Yes, really, how could you?

You can't .. it might be a fact, it could be the purest fantasy.

It is only by verification you can get a grasp if a claim has a basis in reality.

AquinasD · Post by **AquinasD** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:16 pm

Goat wrote:It is only by verification you can get a grasp if a claim has a basis in reality.

Can you verify whether this claim has a basis in reality?

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:42 pm

AquinasD wrote:
Goat wrote:It is only by verification you can get a grasp if a claim has a basis in reality.
Can you verify whether this claim has a basis in reality?

If you treat it as the 'empirical hypotheses', then yes you can.

Read that link about Naive Empiricalism I posted earlier

AquinasD · Post by **AquinasD** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:19 pm

Goat wrote:If you treat it as the 'empirical hypotheses', then yes you can.

Care to provide the demonstration, then?

I don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere else. You insist, arbitrarily, on a confusion of kinds of knowledge in order to avoid conclusions that you do not like, but refuse to follow through and demonstrate the consistency of your set of premises by which you pick and choose how you would like to approach concepts. It is like a scientism. I do not see how bare perception counts as a kind of knowledge, especially if you wish for your "empirical hypotheses" to be gained from them.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:40 am

AquinasD wrote:
Goat wrote:If you treat it as the 'empirical hypotheses', then yes you can.
Care to provide the demonstration, then?

I don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere else. You insist, arbitrarily, on a confusion of kinds of knowledge in order to avoid conclusions that you do not like, but refuse to follow through and demonstrate the consistency of your set of premises by which you pick and choose how you would like to approach concepts. It is like a scientism. I do not see how bare perception counts as a kind of knowledge, especially if you wish for your "empirical hypotheses" to be gained from them.

Why, I have posted that link already..

here it is.. yet again
http://www.ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/defens ... ricism.pdf

AquinasD · Post by **AquinasD** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:07 pm

Goat wrote:Why, I have posted that link already..

here it is.. yet again
http://www.ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/defens ... ricism.pdf

I see nothing in the article that manages to avoid the objections I've already made.

I suppose this is the end of our discussion, since you can't argue for your claims. Until then, good day.

Mr.Badham · Post by **Mr.Badham** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:55 am

AquinasD wrote:
Mr.Badham wrote:You've just crystallized my thread eloquently. Everything you've mentioned is what I meant by placebo. I feel sad that you cannot simply enjoy your child's laughter without placing some extra meaning to it. It's as though you feel your child's laughter in and of itself is lacking something.
Are you questioning the whole endeavor of seeking existential significance?

I have come to the understanding that everything I perceive is the act of God's creation. This gives me a certain kind of peace that I did not have before I understood this. Should I shirk any sort of existential placement that my understanding can give me? A person who has come to have this kind of peace, if they were to lose it, would they not also perceive how less peaceful, or meaningful, their existence was before such a type of understanding?

Here is an aesthetickal example.

I have always enjoyed the music of Beethoven, since even before I could play an instrument. However, as I became better at playing my own instrument (trumpet, for the curious) I could better appreciate just what is going on in his music. I can recognize that while before I was perfectly justified in appreciating his music, I can also recognize that my current appreciation of his music is much deeper and sophisticated; I would not wish to lose this deeper appreciation even if I knew I might still appreciate it at a lesser level.

If I can appreciate Beethoven's music at a deeper level, shouldn't I do so?

Or do you think that those who can appreciate fine art ought to stick to more basic offerings? Ought the wine connoisseur to drink only Franzia and never a Bordeaux? Kincaid over Monet? John Williams over Chopin?

Even though your appreciation of his music is much deeper, not one single thing has changed with his music. Not one note. Your appreciation has changed within yourself. Not because there is a God, but because you learned how appreciate. It's yours. I don't know why you don't give yourself more credit.

Placebo involves the entire experience in order to work. For instance, you couldn't go to the doctor and ask him to give you a placebo. Your wife couldn't dress up as a nurse and inject you with saline solution. It's about the experience.

If someone filled a bottle of Bordeaux with Franzia, and served it to you at a five star restaurant, while sitting down to a three hundred dollar plate of food, would you be able to tell the difference?

Why is watching 10 year olds play sports boring as all get out... until your ten year old is playing?

Think of people who win fake lotteries. If you go on Youtube you can see a bunch of people scratch fake tickets. They believe they've won, they feel extreme joy, happiness, pleasure, and then they realize they've been duped. And they are extremely unhappy. Where did the joy come from? It didn't come from winning, because they didn't win. You can't call it a spiritual thing, can you? Where did the joy come from? It came from within. It came from expectation. It certainly didn't come from God.

I'd like to give a religious person a fake lottery ticket, and let them believe they've won long enough to give God credit.