Some will say that they see nothing unreasonable in the argument we have just refuted. But nobody truly believes this, and given half a chance, will show this through their actions. Let us apply this "principle of inference" to an everyday situation, and see the absurdity that results. Let us go on to note, that it will be an absurdity that almost noone will be as committed to accepting as they might like to pretend to be. This is significant.
Question : Significant in what sense?
.. Answer : Click here
Now, to see the unreasonability of the position described above, let us now examine our own lives, and the implications of that argument if it is accepted in those lives. Note the ludicrous nature of that which would follow, if we were to do so. Some will say that they see nothing wrong with the implications in question, but as we can see by watching them, this assertion, which comes unsupported by argument, is an insincere one, which we may thus rightly ignore, as we ignore those who offer it, when they do so.
Take the everyday experience of dealing with an individual who is abusive toward one in private, but behaves himself when others are around. One will, occasionally, encounter a nosy individual who tries to pressure one to make peace with one's tormentor. When one points out that the abuse has been consistently initiated by the other person, this individual replies by saying that the other person said the same thing about you.
You feel like screaming and killing at that point, right? Why? Because, as you tell him, you were there and he wasn't. He is guessing, while you know. He has, in effect, projected the limitations of his own vantage point upon yours, implying that if he didn't see something, you couldn't possibly have either. Apparently believing that reality isn't there, when he isn't looking - if he wasn't there to see something, that it couldn't possibly have been there to be seen. The hidden assumption implicit in his argument - and it is an egotistical one - is that one should require his support and approval to believe the evidence of one's own eyes and ears. When one asks such a person, why one should agree to be so softheaded as that, the usual reply is for him to ask what he should be forming his opinion about the dispute on, other than the evidence of his eyes and ears? The answer is to ask him why, as a nonwitness to the hostilities, he should be forming an opinion at all, and having formed that opinion, why should he feel the need to share it with anyone but himself?
Or, to put it more crudely, why doesn't he mind his own business until he knows what he is talking about?
And yet, if we accept the principle of inference, proposed in the argument above, we must accept this position here, as being the only one, that anyone could reasonably take, including ourselves! But does it truly seem to be so? If not, then how can one accept the premises and yet reject that which they imply? As a matter of simple logic, one can not.
If we have the statement
then since a statement implies its contrapositive, we have"If statement A holds, then so does statement B"If we are then told that statement B is invalid, we have no legitimate alternative left to us, but to reject statement A. If we wish to claim that our outrage at the attitude of the busybody in the above illustration is not merely an irrational burst of emotion, but is justified and motivated by the facts of the situation, then we must reject the principle of inference that would tell us that his attitude is warranted. If we would claim to believe in that principle, we would be confronted with the reality that in our hearts, we do not believe in what we are saying. This would raise the question, of why we see fit to say it at all."If statement B is invalid, then so is statement A".Some might respond by saying that in admitting such testimony, we are allowing our hearts to rule our heads. This is not the case. We are merely giving our hearts the chance to keep our heads honest. The outrage we feel at the smugness of the one in the scenario above is a reflection of our expectations of what will follow, if his attitude is the one that prevails. Yet, if the principle of inference it is rooted in is valid, no harm will follow to anyone from its acceptance. Noone will be pressured into acknowledging something that is hatefully untrue. Yet, experience tells us that this hope, is an absurd one. We will be put upon. The emotions summoned forth, through our imagining of this scenario, merely force us to open our eyes, and see the truth, by making willful blindness, when confronted with the absurdities of what we are asked to believe, cease to seem a source of comfort - if it ever did seem to be so, in the first place.
What does any of this have to do with the search for the Divine? Well, many will claim to disagree with the assertion that the argument of the evangelising atheist - that experience must be externally verifiable before one may legitimately base personal belief on it - is an invalid one, simply offering an assertion by way of rebuttal to our argument against this point of view. But, I would claim, they do not truly, in their hearts, believe what they are saying, and if they were to examine the corollaries of the assertion that they have offered, in everyday life, they couldn't help but see its absurdity.
Question : So, what if someone refuses to acknowledge this?
.. Answer : Click here.
While the everyday experience that we have spoken of, is that of dealing with anger, the beauty of our situation here is that the private experience in question is one of a growing love. So, why is the challenge given here, defined in terms of fearing the acquisition of an unpleasant experience, rather than, say, in terms of missing out on a pleasant one? As we would be here, should we turn our backs on those we pray to, in order to please our missionary for the cause of disbelief? Because, sad to say, it is all too common for people to reject that which could make life beautiful for themselves, just to feed their own egos. Often, they will not even let themselves be conscious of what they have lost. It is the unpleasant things that we can't help but appreciate, on a visceral level.
Consequently, illustrations of points tend to be more informative, in the sense of being easier to connect to, on an intuitive level, when the references are unpleasant ones, regrettably.