Proving Morality: Artfully Fallacious Zealotry

This is part 2, “Artfully Fallacious Zealotry,” of the five-part essay “Proving Morality.” You may wish to read part 1 first.

Here is the next portion of the proof of supernatural existence from Koanic Soul for your consideration:

Set B:

1b. You are aware of only perceptions, not noumenos (things in themselves).

This is proven in Kant, and is taken here as given. He would claim it is a priori synthetic knowledge, a point on which we can safely remain agnostic.

2b. The material world is pure noumenos, or ding an sich.

Purely analytic statement; definitionally true.

3b. Therefore, you are aware of only perceptions, not the material world.

Law used: Substitution.

In proposition 1b a distinction is made between the reality of perception and the reality of what is perceived. The term ‘noumenos’ is explained as ‘things in themselves’, our supposed reality I suppose. He appears to mean or nearly mean ‘noumenon’. I admit I am not familiar with Kant. I will still point out that the ‘reality’ that is not the perception has not been precisely identified or defined, though it will be in proposition 2b. Here we have an allusion to unqualified reality as detached from our perceptions, yet from Set A we are to admit our perceptions are real. Interesting.

With proposition 2b we now know that noumenos refers to the real world, so with lots of tedium we have the working assumption that perception is not the same thing as reality. The specific instances of mistaken understandings we have had and subsequently identified in our experiences can be generalized into a distinction between reality and perception. Furthermore, the computer analogy admits the distinction between phenomenon providing input to a computer sensor, perhaps a camera lens or a microphone, and the translation of the input via stimulus of one or more receptors into the digitized binary form of computer data. The real world might be digitized at a very small subatomic level, but it can NOT be rationally conceived as an equivalent binary construct. Something is typically lost in the translation from one format to another, and more so from a richness of reality to the paucity of man-made computing.

So far, we essentially have perception is a reality or is real, yet perception is not reality.

Set C:

3a. What you are aware of is real and actually existing.

3b. You are aware of only perceptions, not the material world.

3c. Perceptions are real and actually existing, but are not material.

Law used: Substitution.

Sounds reasonable. The reality of our perceptions is different from material reality. We allow for a divergence from material reality, presumably noumenos, of our perception of that material reality.

Set D:

3c. Perceptions are real and actually existing, but are not material.

2d. That which has real existence, yet is not material, all men call “supernatural”.

Definitionally true.

3d. Perceptions exist, and are supernatural.

Law used: Substitution.

Proposition 3c (repeated in the 1d slot of Set D) is as valid as before, and works for me. Proposition 2d introduces a real existence not material that by process of elimination must be supernatural. The supernatural is all that is left only if the reality of perception, that virtual reality dependent on material reality, is NOT included.

The substitution used to create proposition 3d replaces the reality of perception regarded as not material with the reality of the supernatural. Since psychological reality and supernatural reality both are distinct from material or physical reality, we are to presume one can be substituted for the other.

With all due respect, even though definitive spiritual belief of this kind empowers people of a certain ilk to perform on earth at their best, what bullshit! A lot of thoughtful reflection, but flawed into bullshit land nonetheless. Classic circular reasoning here: I believe in God; therefore God really exists. It’s like I believe the Bible is true, which proves the God of the Bible is true, which proves the Bible true, …. Does anyone believe that? (Rhetorical, my soul can only take so much.) No readers’ comments at the Koanic Soul posting? Huh.

Here is his summation of the proof:

Conclusion: If one supernatural thing exists, then the supernatural exists. Perceptions exist. Therefore, the supernatural exists.

Note that this is not a proof of the existence of God. For the evidence that Christianity is true, see the next page.

The post goes on to preemptively argue against disagreements with at least three times the verbiage as the original proof which proves it already, right? This argumentation by voluminous paralysis of directly refuting analysis is not an accident. It is the Christian argument du jour because: (1) it obscures the supposedly ironclad reasoning from scrutiny, and (2) it infers proof of correctness from a lack of proof of incorrectness vis-à-vis the overwhelming ‘evidence’. The voluminous overload of the argumentation hides the fallacious logic of Denying the Antecedent.

Blind faith is the courage substitute of choice for the mentally weak.

—‘Reality’ Doug, 30 April 2013


About ‘Reality’ Doug

I'm feed up with herd people, so civil and uncivilized, these feckless barbarians with manicures. Where is Galt's Gulch? and where are the people to go there? Who am I? Who is John Galt?
Gallery | This entry was posted in Philosophy and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s