Belief in Scientology: ~M~ vs. Tom Sawyer

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between ~M~ and Tom Sawyer who will debate the following resolution:

"Resolved: ~M~'s Belief in Scientology is Reasonable."

~M~ will affirm and Tom Sawyer will oppose. The debate will have 3 rounds and ~M~ will go first, per the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=4379354&postcount=40).

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4406067#post4406067) is set up in the Non-Abrahamic Religion & Philosophy forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Enjoy the debate!

- KWSN, FD Moderator

[~M~]

I am the affirmer in this debate; therefore, it is my obligation to argue the reasonableness of my belief in Scientology. However, note that this opening statement functions as part of my case—it does not function as my case. Due to brevity, I will have to offer subsequent responses that will give further insight into why my belief in Scientology is reasonable and hence my case is accumulative. The focus of this opening statement will be on (1) the argument from experience and (2) epistemic aptness.

My Experience

Recently, I had a clear and distinct experience: a being took form in my room from what appeared to be nothing. I was sober and was just as awake then, as I am now. The being and I spoke; ‘he’ referred to ‘himself’ as Xenu. Xenu asserted there to be many truths in Scientology and that I ought to seek such truths for myself. From then, he disappeared into thin air. This event is what I call ‘my experience’ and I will refer to it as such, henceforth. Moreover, please note that skepticism is expected in regards to the veracity of my experience extending further than my own mind; yet, the probandum is whether I—not you—am reasonable to believe in Scientology. Thus, the debate pertains to (i) what I believe and (ii) whether my belief(s) are reasonable under the circumstances in which they were derived and/or are retained.

Considerations

It seems reasonable for others to suspect—even assert—my experience to have been a mere illusion produced by internal conditions. Yet, what is reasonable for me to believe? Surely, there are some experiential recollections that I once believed were true but are now deemed false; yet, would this mean that I was unreasonable to believe in their occurrence at the time that I believed them to be true? Perhaps in some cases. Yet, my experience is something that I testify as recollecting in a clear and distinct fashion. Therefore, it is sufficient for me to claim ipso facto justification for believing my experience as an occurrence in reality. If not, then a bulk of my knowledge claims will fall in a vacuum of skepticism because they, too, are believed as veridical based upon clear and distinct experiential recollections. Yet, because that is not only unpractical but also an unconventional standard of epistemic practice, I am then compelled to assert the uniform privilege of granting my experience to have likely occurred in reality.

It may be possible to deny the ipso facto justification by questioning my sanity. After all, it seems possible that my experience could have been an illusion and since, if M believes S largely based upon E; and E is doubtful, then S, to an extent, must be doubtful too. Yet, sincerely doubting my own reason is an inescapable quagmire. If I am to hold many beliefs pertaining to the external world, then the belief in the soundness of my own reason ought to be properly basic because I cannot use my reason to justify my reason: it is circular.

Additionally, it's reasonable to propose that Xenu could have been lying or mistaken when ‘he’ claimed there are many truths in Scientology. Thus, while granting that I may be justified to believe my experience reflects reality, I still cannot reasonably derive a belief in Scientology amid the possibility of deception. This is one reason why I only assert my experience to be a step towards my reasonable belief in Scientology. In subsequent replies, I will offer philosophical arguments that work concomitantly with my experience and lead me into reasonably accepting Scientology.

Epistemic Aptness

The argument from epistemic aptness proposes that the epistemic virtues and the noetic skills of a believer can provide good reason to view their belief as subjectively reasonable.

For instance, I possess epistemic conscientiousness;[1] I also believe myself as open to fault and alternative beliefs. These characteristics are epistemic virtues and function as evidence for my good character as a believer. This is because the beliefs I hold were likely sought and retained in a manner of reasonableness; since, after all, it would not be in my character to do otherwise.

The second consideration is the argument from skills/reliability: I am an intelligent person; I am educated in critical thinking and philosophy. I earn good grades in school and seemingly possess a decent track record of making reasonable judgments. Since these skills are good indicators of epistemic reliability, then the presence of such skills within me offer a good reason to uphold that what I believe was likely acquired through reliable means. Consequently, there are now two good reasons from epistemic aptness to affirm the likelihood of my beliefs possessing subjective reasonableness. For, if my beliefs did not possess subjective reasonableness, then it is not likely that I would hold them as true. But since I do hold Scientology as true and it is my belief, then my epistemic virtues/noetic skills suggest a strong likelihood that my belief in Scientology is subjectively reasonable.


[1] A term taken from Montmarquet.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Tom Sawyer, please note that your statement is overdue. You will have grace period until May 10.

Thank you for your consideration,

- KWSN, FD Moderator


Addendum: I have agreed to grant Tom Sawyer an extension to May 14.

[Tom Sawyer]

While I would like to respond to what was written, unfortunately, ~M~’s post appears to be unrelated to what this debate is about. In the parameters he agreed to discuss, he was not awake and sober, as he claimed, but sleeping and Xenu appeared to him in a dream and had brought Tom Cruise along with him.

I had a recent conversion. Xenu and Tom Cruise came to me in a dream and presented me to the light. Thus, indirect evidence for scientology!!!!


If you’ll follow the thread after that, you’ll see that there was no change in his description of what caused his conversion between that post and my accepting of the debate. Therefore, the whole part of his argument in his opening post about how this was a lucid experience that occurred in reality as opposed to in a dream and this is why his conclusions should be viewed as reasonable is based upon an incorrect report of what we’re debating and must be disregarded. There are some arguments there worth taking on, but until ~M~ can present them within the scope of the debate, I have no choice but to ignore them.

This debate is about whether or not ~M~ is reasonable in believing in Scientology as a result of a dream where Xenu and Tom Cruise told him it was real. Lucid experiences while he was awake and sober that don’t involve actors have no bearing on what’s being discussed. If he wishes to represent his arguments in his subsequent responses based upon what we agreed this debate was about, I would be more than happy to address them and I’d be fine not counting his opening post towards the number of rounds, but there’s nothing for me to address at this point.

I hope that he does continue, since I’d like to take on some of his arguments, but it really will have to be within the parameters that he had laid out when he challenged me to the debate and not something unrelated to it.

[~M~]

I will conclude the accumulative argument for the reasonableness of my belief; the subsequent and final statement will address the criticisms that if not given from Tom, then from the Peanut Gallery.

There seems to be some mistake: there was no agreement as to what sticking to my (facetious) claim about a dream at all. This includes the formal debate parameters and even the thread that the debate emanated from. After I made the (facetious) claim, Tom accepted a universal challenge to debate Scientology.


If you want, I'll debate you about Scientology. It's a really funny religion and I honestly don't think I can get tired talking about it.
Pick your favourite [sic] part and I'll be happy to let you know why everyone is right to laugh at you for believing it.

Post #19: http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=204018


I replied with the formal debate proposal.

In the proposal, it was not agreed that I would argue from a dream but rather that I could not ignore Xenu because I did bring him up. As Tom said:

“This means I'm going to bring up Xenu. That means you're going to have to defend the concept of Scientology in a debate in which Xenu is mentioned. I'd also like to point out that I agreed to this debate because you brought up Xenu first, so don't think you can ignore him.”

Post # 23: http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=204052

The discussion pertained to whether I can ignore or dismiss some of Scientology’s claims. In contrast to what Tom tells you, there was no agreement about my dream but only Xenu as an existing figure. I have no problem talking about Xenu and even assert his existence. Tom cannot wiggle his way out of this. See for yourselves. I repeat: not once in our discussions, the formal proposal and most importantly in the formal debate parameters did I ever agree to what Tom claims. Tom agreed to the debate because I mentioned Xenu and hence I cannot claim him as a falsehood. I continue to do this: I formally mentioned Xenu.

However, my dear readers, I will be a sport for Tom. I have no problem asserting my dream as true. My dream and ‘my experience’ were both events of my life. They are entirely consistent with each other and since there is no agreement segregating Xenu to the dream land (or any agreement other than Xenu’s as a an existing being), then they are both consistent with the debate parameters. Anything to the contrary is blowing smoke to get wiggle out of a tough argument. I hope this is the last time I have to deal with such nonsense.



The Pragmatic Argument

As a consequence from my experience, reality is now, for me, evidentially ambiguous. Indeed, what I once believed has now been destabilized by ‘my experience’. Considering such ambiguity, some people could assert that only an agnostic stance is justified and their point would be well taken. For, if I were to strictly rely on just the evidence, then I would only assert an agnostic stance as justified too. But, I do not assert such this; thus, I do not strictly rely on just the evidence. This is because in my circumstances, the evidential ambiguity enables me to consider a route of pragmatic reasonableness. The premise behind this enablement is simple: if no evidential arguments can act as a defeater for the ambiguity pertaining to the truth values of personal philosophies, then I am free to believe (or disbelieve) whatever personal philosophy that best serves my interest because it is rational to pursue my best interest.

For instance, I want you to imagine that a dichotomy existed between the personal philosophies of X and Y. Additionally, I want you to imagine that X and Y are incompatible views and interpret them as having ambiguous or obscured truth values. Now, if it was determined that belief in X provides greater health benefits over belief in Y and your health is in your best interest, then belief in X over Y is pragmatically reasonable because it is rational to pursue your best interest.

This is tantamount to my reasoning with Scientology because (i) there is evidential ambiguity of personal philosophies, (ii) to feel better is in my best interest and (iii) I feel better with belief rather than with non-belief. And, not only do I personally testify to this but there have been a study affirming the beneficial health-value of religious belief. [1] Yet, if that’s true, then a question is raised: why have a belief in Scientology and not some other religious conviction? An answer to this question is that Scientology makes better sense of ‘my experience’ than any other religious belief.

Anyhow, that’s the general structure of the accumulative case. I believe in Scientology because ‘my experience’ led me, an epistemically apt person, to evidential ambiguity. From there, I deploy the Pragmatic argument and conclude my belief as reasonable.


I apologize for any spelling errors or grammar mistakes--I prepared this very quickly. Later, Gators.

[1] There have actually been several studies affirming this and I can reference them if needed. Yet, I doubt the claim will be contested and so one example will suffice. http://psychsoc.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/3/S154

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

~M~, please note that your recent statement is slightly over the word limit (roughly 19 words). We'll leave your statement as is, but please try to keep future statements within the limit. Also, you may not address the peanut gallery remarks in the formal debate. You will have the opportunity to do this when the debate is over.

- KWSN, FD Moderator

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Tom Sawyer, please note that your next statement is overdue. However, you will have a grace period of 48 hours from the time of this post.

- KWSN, FD Moderator

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The grace period has expired. Unfortunately, I must therefore declare a forfeiture. ~M~ may now post a final statement if he wishes to.

KWSN, FD Moderator

[~M~]

A win by forfeiture? Boo. Well, Tom's abject failure to address my argument is disappointing. For, I was really hoping to talk about virtue epistemology; it is not as appreciated as it ought to be and many seem to be ignorant to its very existence. I suggest my readers and Tom to examine it.

To clarify matters, the debate never was about what Tom claims. For some reason he seemed to have forgotten his previous debate strategy that he revealed in the Proposal Thread:




My argument is going to be that belief in Scientology is not reasonable, regardless of who it is doing the believing. If you want to base your half of the argument on yourself specifically instead of Scientologists in general, then go ahead. My point's going to be that the "religion" is just so silly that any kind of belief in it is unreasonable, whether that belief be by you or anyone else.



It is odd that he blatantly altered the debate when it was throw down time. Sorry for the lame debate.




I'm going back to bed.

-M

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The formal debate is now complete. Discussion can be continued in the peanut gallery.

- KWSN, FD Moderator