Argument from truth

I'm going to shear down our conversation due to the fact that I am trying to spend less time on CF. Sorry in advance for the loss of content.

Moral Orel said:

I'll grant you that the deceptive nature of jokes is intended to be temporary, but that doesn't change the fact that if I'm successful, I caused you to hold a false belief for a time.

Click to expand...

Okay, sure, but my point about the intent grounding a locution still holds. A jester is not necessarily untrustworthy, for intent can be gauged, especially in certain scenarios.

Right, first they believe something that is false, then they realize the truth. I don't know why you're hung up on whether we would call it "deception" or "a lie".

Click to expand...

Okay I suppose some jokes include lies...

But I don't think the essence of humor is found in deception. Deception is just a common setting for a joke, but it isn't necessary and the humor of a joke doesn't come from deception. There are jokes that are just making fun of people for being stupid, gullible, etc., but I don't find them very humorous in the long run.

Remember, we're talking about whether truth can be grounded in a good god or not. I'm saying that even a good god can cause you to hold false beliefs and be doing something good with it.

Click to expand...

The legitimacy of using lies or deception as a means to an end is a good argument. Jokes, not so much. I can grant that God has a sense of humor and not be at all concerned about deep deception in reality due to that fact.

No, it's because people liked being tricked when they don't have a personal stake in the matter. The natural response to realizing you were tricked into making a false assumption is laughter. People enjoy magic tricks for the same reason. People enjoy being immersed in a good book or movie where they forget that it's just characters on a page or a screen.

Click to expand...

There is some humor that has deception at its core, but it's a small percentage and I think it pales in comparison to humor that is funny in form/content. (Granted, a larger percentage of humor includes deception as an accidental aspect, but the deception merely elevates rather than generates the humor.)

The essence of humor is the paradigm shift, when reality bends and shifts perspective from one lens to another. That paradoxical tension can take the form of a pun, equivocation, deception-truth turn, or any number of other things. The laughter comes from the sense of absurdity that is produced, the levity, transitoriness, and "manipulability" of reality. It is the same kind of delight that is produced when the autumn landscape is suddenly transformed by a blanket of snow. The mind, through the imagination, takes reality into its hand and reshapes it into something completely (and often contradictorily) different and new.

As long as you're the one revealing that you were being deceptive through a joke, people are fine with that because you can be counted on to tell the truth.

Click to expand...

And if you don't reveal that in one way or another then it's not funny and it's not a joke, so it's hard to see how jokes produce distrust.

In my case, dark dry humor is my specialty. And I know so many jokes that almost everything reminds me of one, so I interject them into conversations like regular anecdotes. People don't generally catch on that it's all a big joke until after I've finished the punchline, so the extra surprise that they've been hearing a joke the whole time amplifies the funny. I tell so many, that sometimes when I'm telling a true story people want to interrupt and ask, "Is this for real?". Oddly enough, they never interrupt my jokes, just the true stories. But people trust me too because I always reveal whether the stories are true or false.

Click to expand...

Yes, the phrase used to determine whether my grandpa was being facetious was, "His lips are moving!"

zippy2006 said:

There is some humor that has deception at its core, but it's a small percentage and I think it pales in comparison to humor that is funny in form/content. (Granted, a larger percentage of humor includes deception as an accidental aspect, but the deception merely elevates rather than generates the humor.)

The essence of humor is the paradigm shift, when reality bends and shifts perspective from one lens to another. That paradoxical tension can take the form of a pun, equivocation, deception-truth turn, or any number of other things. The laughter comes from the sense of absurdity that is produced, the levity, transitoriness, and "manipulability" of reality. It is the same kind of delight that is produced when the autumn landscape is suddenly transformed by a blanket of snow. The mind, through the imagination, takes reality into its hand and reshapes it into something completely (and often contradictorily) different and new.

Click to expand...

But the false assumption doesn't transform into something else, you realize it was false all along. That's what makes it a false belief. Deception makes a joke work. It does generate the humor because humor comes from the realization of how you were deceived. I know a lot of jokes, and I'm having a hard time thinking of one that doesn't involve deception of any kind. How about an example?

As long as there's one joke that uses deception and brings about good, my argument works. All I'm showing is that deception isn't inherently evil, so a good god is free to practice it. What is the intent of the good god who practices deception? Well, you won't know that until after you're dead and he reveals it to you.

I'm having trouble reconciling your idea that "If you have no reason to suspect deception, then deception is unlikely" with my idea that "If a god is deceiving you, he won't give you a reason to suspect deception". Deception occurring and deception not occurring look exactly the same, so how do you know that one is more likely than the other?

Moral Orel said:

It does generate the humor because humor comes from the realization of how you were deceived.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Deception can cause the paradoxical paradigm shift that leads to humor, but it is rare that the humor depends directly upon the deception. As I said, the exception is making fun of gullible people. Think of Ashton Kutcher's "Punk'd." Most of the laughter is from the audience, not the participants. If the participants are laughing, it's more due to a sense of relief than anything else. Deep deception destroys humor on the part of those deceived.

I know a lot of jokes, and I'm having a hard time thinking of one that doesn't involve deception of any kind. How about an example?

Click to expand...

"Did you hear about the fire at the circus? It was (in tents / intense)." (Requires vocalization)

Or just watch Demetri Martin. Hardly any of his jokes make use of deception. Heck, I don't think any stand up comedian makes use of outright deception in their jokes. The whole setting is imaginative. True deception is nigh impossible. Everyone is suspending their belief; no one is in truth-mode.

As long as there's one joke that uses deception and brings about good, my argument works. All I'm showing is that deception isn't inherently evil, so a good god is free to practice it. What is the intent of the good god who practices deception? Well, you won't know that until after you're dead and he reveals it to you.

Click to expand...

But now you're conflating the crucial issue: temporary vs. permanent. A joke is temporary, innocuous deception that does not bear on trust and causes no significant injury to the deceived. That's not what you're talking about.

If you think that jokes which injure the deceived and cause long-term deception are licit, then I disagree. Suppose The Truman Show was a big joke being played on Jim Carrey's character. You could make the argument that it was a joke, at his expense, that served the common good of the humor of the viewers. It ruined his entire life, but maybe people find that funny, right? I think such jokes are sinful rather than legitimate, so there is no reason to suspect God of them.

I'm having trouble reconciling your idea that "If you have no reason to suspect deception, then deception is unlikely" with my idea that "If a god is deceiving you, he won't give you a reason to suspect deception". Deception occurring and deception not occurring look exactly the same, so how do you know that one is more likely than the other?

Click to expand...

From this post:

Natural logic often fails in a contest with an omnipotent being. There are all sorts of natural rules and strategies for poker, horse racing, tennis, and chess, but if you are up against an omnipotent being those strategies will come to naught. And this points to the fact that there is, in an important sense, no reason to worry about whether an omnipotent being is deceiving you. If he is he is; if he isn't he isn't. There is no way to know and therefore no reason to worry.


Edit: Regarding your first point, why is deception funny per se? If deception is a proper cause of humor that is capable of generating humor, then simple, bald, unadorned deception should be funny without any help from other factors. Is it? Further, if deception is inherently funny then all forms of deception should contain some humor. Do they? Do you laugh when you get your math test back and realize your rational powers deceived you and caused you to make a mistake?

zippy2006 said:

I don't think so. Deception can cause the paradoxical paradigm shift that leads to humor, but it is rare that the humor depends directly upon the deception. As I said, the exception is making fun of gullible people. Think of Ashton Kutcher's "Punk'd." Most of the laughter is from the audience, not the participants. If the participants are laughing, it's more due to a sense of relief than anything else. Deep deception destroys humor on the part of those deceived.

Click to expand...

Pranks aren't jokes. Not all deception qualifies as "a joke".

zippy2006 said:

"Did you hear about the fire at the circus? It was (in tents / intense)." (Requires vocalization)

Or just watch Demetri Martin. Hardly any of his jokes make use of deception. Heck, I don't think any stand up comedian makes use of outright deception in their jokes. The whole setting is imaginative. True deception is nigh impossible. Everyone is suspending their belief; no one is in truth-mode.

Click to expand...

I'm going to give you Demetri Martin, but I can't give you your pun. The pun requires an assumption of one usage of a word/sound and then the realization of another. It's subtle, it can be quick, but it's still a false assumption. Demetri definitely uses jokes, but he's all about showing the absurdity of everyday things.

For a lot of comics I would agree that it isn't inherently deceptive, because they're telling stories (generally) and we don't assume those stories are completely true. But I wouldn't really call a funny story a joke either unless it has a punchline. A story with a lot of silly/absurd elements doesn't qualify as a joke.

zippy2006 said:

But now you're conflating the crucial issue: temporary vs. permanent. A joke is temporary, innocuous deception that does not bear on trust and causes no significant injury to the deceived. That's not what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

No I'm not. You're just not recognizing that "temporary" means any amount of time less than "permanent". Calling, "Until your physical body dies" permanent isn't accurate if you believe in an afterlife, right?

zippy2006 said:

If you think that jokes which injure the deceived and cause long-term deception are licit, then I disagree. Suppose The Truman Show was a big joke being played on Jim Carrey's character. You could make the argument that it was a joke, at his expense, that served the common good of the humor of the viewers. It ruined his entire life, but maybe people find that funny, right? I think such jokes are sinful rather than legitimate, so there is no reason to suspect God of them.

Click to expand...

Again, that would be a prank, not a joke. The Truman Show was an elaborate hoax perpetrated, not something that was simply told to Jim. Even if it were, we would have to consider that lie was all-encompassing. Everything he thought was true turned out to be false. We could see real harm in the fact that he realized no one ever really loved him, and such. However, for my argument to work, I'm fine with saying that an all good god couldn't deceive in an all encompassing way such that everything is false, but anything could be false. Which would be indistinguishable to us right now, but the later results would be different.

zippy2006 said:

From this post:

"If you don't have a reason to believe someone is deceitful then the possibility that they are deceiving you should be remote."
Natural logic often fails in a contest with an omnipotent being. There are all sorts of natural rules and strategies for poker, horse racing, tennis, and chess, but if you are up against an omnipotent being those strategies will come to naught. And this points to the fact that there is, in an important sense, no reason to worry about whether an omnipotent being is deceiving you. If he is he is; if he isn't he isn't. There is no way to know and therefore no reason to worry.

Click to expand...

I would agree that in a pragmatic sense we should go about our business as if our perception of reality can be trusted, but this thread is about grounding truth in a god. If natural logic fails in this regard with a god, then my point stands.

zippy2006 said:

Edit: Regarding your first point, why is deception funny per se? If deception is a proper cause of humor that is capable of generating humor, then simple, bald, unadorned deception should be funny without any help from other factors. Is it? Further, if deception is inherently funny then all forms of deception should contain some humor. Do they? Do you laugh when you get your math test back and realize your rational powers deceived you and caused you to make a mistake?

Click to expand...

Deception isn't funny, per se. I have to walk back my original claims that deception is integral to telling jokes, since you brought up Demetri. So all I'm saying now is that when deception is used in a joke, it is the deception that makes it funny. Without the deception, that joke wouldn't be funny. That doesn't require all deception to be funny.

Let's say I have a broken sink. I need to open up a pipe. There are other ways to get that pipe open, but a wrench works, so that's what I'll use. I could use that wrench to do all sorts of other things too, but those other things wouldn't open up my pipe. So it's true that I didn't need a wrench, and it's true the wrench is capable of other things, but the wrench is directly responsible for opening that pipe.

Sapiens said:

One thing is for sure, knowledge concerning that reality must reside in a mind. Whatever it may be beyond that, if anything at all, is unknowable at least and non existent at most. They are that reality itself, yes, as far as we are concerned. You wouldn't know about reality without both your mind and your subjective/conscious experience.

You don't need an eternal mind if you think it's only a hallucinatory and objectively meaningless experience from a material brain. If you think it's more than that though, like I do, then yes.

To affirm that our thoughts represent accurately the reality they are about is to assume design.

Click to expand...

I don’t know why you keep returning to your assertion our experience is entirely hallucinatory without some eternal mind grounding reality. I’m ok with saying our experience is objectively meaningless, but from our subjective experience an objective perspective is itself entirely inaccessible and therefore irrelevant unless it matches our subjective experience. It’s the subjective meaning that counts. Further, it does not follow that without an eternal mind grounding all of reality, our experience is entirely hallucinatory. It surely is hallucinatory to a degree, but my point this whole time has been that whatever that degree is, it’s largely negligible due to the fact that we’re able to accomplish so much while laboring under the assumptions that we make about our experience. I don’t understand why you think all of that should be illusory without an eternal mind.

gaara4158 said:

I don’t know why you keep returning to your assertion that an eternal mind is if we don’t concede that our experience is entirely hallucinatory and objectively meaningless. I’m ok with saying our experience is objectively meaningless, but from our subjective experience an objective perspective is itself entirely inaccessible and therefore irrelevant unless it matches our subjective experience. It’s the subjective meaning that counts. Further, it does not follow that without an eternal mind grounding all of reality, our experience is entirely hallucinatory. It surely is hallucinatory to a degree, but my point this whole time has been that whatever that degree is, it’s largely negligible due to the fact that we’re able to accomplish so much while laboring under the assumptions that we make about our experience. I don’t understand why you think all of that should be illusory without an eternal mind.

Click to expand...

Essentially, what you're saying is the universe made us aware enough to realize we're all going to cease to exist in a vast eternal/everlasting waste of time and energy. That is if no eternal or everlasting mind exists to continually give meaning to reality.

You're welcome to believe the former, but others may find valid reason to believe the latter. Either position takes faith though.

Chriliman said:

Essentially, what you're saying is the universe made us aware enough to realize we're all going to cease to exist in a vast eternal/everlasting waste of time and energy. That is if no eternal or everlasting mind exists to continually give meaning to reality.

You're welcome to believe the former, but others may find valid reason to believe the latter. Either position takes faith though.

Click to expand...

“Waste” is a strong word, and I would even say it’s meaningless in the context of a purposeless universe. Anything that happens simply happens; there is no concept of waste or efficiency until thinking agents can give purpose to resources. In fact, to call the expanse of time after which all minds cease to exist a “waste” is a contradiction; the concept of waste refers to allocation of resources with regard to an intended purpose, which requires a mind.

But aside from all that, I understand that being alone in the universe is not an attractive prospect and isn’t necessarily a healthy perspective from which to approach life. I’m not closed off to the idea of some eternal mind existing, but I’m not going to agree that it must be true just because I’m uncomfortable with it being false.

gaara4158 said:

“Waste” is a strong word, and I would even say it’s meaningless in the context of a purposeless universe. Anything that happens simply happens; there is no concept of waste or efficiency until thinking agents can give purpose to resources. In fact, to call the expanse of time after which all minds cease to exist a “waste” is a contradiction; the concept of waste refers to allocation of resources with regard to an intended purpose, which requires a mind.

Click to expand...

Given that there are minds now, I think the term "waste" could be rationally used. After all, a mind is a terrible thing to waste isn't it but you're right, after all minds cease to exist, it really doesn't matter.

gaara4158 said:

But aside from all that, I understand that being alone in the universe is not an attractive prospect and isn’t necessarily a healthy perspective from which to approach life. I’m not closed off to the idea of some eternal mind existing, but I’m not going to agree that it must be true just because I’m uncomfortable with it being false.

Click to expand...

Always good to hear.

Sapiens said:

Once again, our everyday commonsense intuition tells us our lives have meaning. We have to again deny a basic evidence for a less obvious thought process, such as naturalism and nihilism. It seems like we're here for a reason. To exist and live, at least. To be happy and fulfilled. Objectively, as Chriliman has said, we would only be dust in the wind. As a Christian, it's to know God and do his will. I also expect him to fulfill his promises of making a new world, eradicating evil, suffering, and death.

I personally don't find convincing the "invent one for yourself" idea. If I invented one, I'd know it's fake. I wouldn't want to live for a fantasy.

Click to expand...

Our common sense intuition is the epitome of subjective guidance. There is plenty of subjective meaning to be had, and it’s just as real as anything else you experience. There is no guarantee that whatever “objective” meaning might exist for us is any better than ones we find on our own anyway. For example, the meaning of a farm pig’s life is to be fattened and slaughtered to be sold at the meat market, but knowing that wouldn’t help the pig much. No, a pig is much better off searching for whatever meaning it can find intuitively rather than contemplating its cosmic fate. And so are we.

Sapiens said:

Well we should still have reasons to trust or not that person. The same with God and the Bible. I have spent the last 2 years wondering and reading about the bible's reliability, and the new testament in particular. I think God is worthy of our trust and the new testament as well. Some others alleged revelations should be found unreliable upon scrutiny, such as the Qur'an, Mormon writings, etc. My point is testimony can be evaluated.

Click to expand...

The Lords word is amazing how all of it fits together ... it does not contradict itself ... if something appears contradictory ... it's our lack of understanding or knowledge and just need to keep searching His word until He reveals to us how it fits together.

Sapiens said:

Well we both agree on that. I just deny that evolution through natural means is what gave us that. I think design is the more obvious and sensible conclusion.

Click to expand...

Why? Don’t you need to be able to point to a potential designer before you can infer design?