|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Getting back to Origins of belief | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 5914 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
I only wanted you to explain to me why you inferred a belief in evolution negated the list you made in Post #34.
You need to realize that while I cannot speak for others your assumption that since I don't call the "other" dimension/metaphysical aspect of our existance God/Jesus Christ etc does not mean I am unaware of it. However, instead of thinking this has some "higher" meaning I simply believe that we have not yet expanded our intelligence to comprehend it. Your disappointment in the scientific basis for "love" is short-sighted. Because it is not 100% of the answer...know what I mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4723 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
Tagless, I have time only to focus on your last statement as it pertains to this thread "Origins of belief":
You inquire:"Your disappointment in the scientific basis for "love" is short-sighted. Because it is not 100% of the answer...know what I mean?" The origin of "evangelical love" seems most pertinant here. I grant you a full scientific inquiry is quite appropriate in this matter even with the evo-queries. Do you speculate such love (however you perceive it) really has had a scientific basis SANS the metaphysical, though? Philip
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 5914 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
Why is it necessary to define love as evangelical?
Do you speculate such love (however you perceive it) really has had a scientific basis SANS the metaphysical, though? My take on this is that Christian's (and others)have named the metaphysical, god/allah. I'm sure you can appreciate the power of naming something (ownership and exclusivity). In other words, Christian's believe that to get access to this god, metaphysical, then one must pass a series tests and follow certain rules, ergo if you experience something that falls into the realm of metaphysical you are experiencing god.....maybe this is why you say "evangelical love"? Do you follow what I am trying to say? That's why I questioned your inference that a person who does not believe in god lacks integrity, sanctity of marriage, etc. Science does offer tantalzing information about the metaphysical..I suggest watching the movie 'What the Bleep Do We Know?'. I see science in it's greatest efforts explaining or enlightening the metaphysical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
sidelined writes: Its been two years! Have you received any respones yet? Science can show ,through careful reasoning and always tentatively,physical and mathematical models that use the world they are studying to explain that world.I have asked many times on this website for some explanation of the way in which a God may be expected to manipulate the matter in this world that,it is claimed, God created. Curiously,I have yet to recieve a response. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Malachi-II Member (Idle past 6244 days) Posts: 139 From: Sussex, England Joined: |
Gentlemen, and ladies. May I suggest a slight change to the original wording of #2?
In other words, human wisdom is the origin of all ideas, beliefs, and thought concepts. Unless I’m mistaken, intelligence gave birth to ideas, etc. Then wisdom was born of our intelligent reasoning and perceptions gained from the evolution of brain cells in the process of successfully surviving in the prehistoric natural world that always seemed to threaten extinction. Both postulated categories have omitted two extremely important faculties of the human mind - inspiration and intuition. For example, when subconsciously a person has a ”Eureka’ moment and either invents or designs a completely new (say) device that revolutionises the fortunes or otherwise of humanity, is it beyond reason to suggest that the inspired idea was obtained from a source other than intelligence or wisdom? I am thinking of a Universal Mind that is far removed from any material reality - and thank God for that! My use of the word God simply implies a personal acknowledgement and appreciation for the unexplainable ethereal evidence that abounds yet is denied by Ego, the rascal that wants to control everything!
To make this argument more realistic, lets eliminate the Bible and ALL wisdom and knowledge from ALL books and human sources. What could be less realistic than that? Eliminate intelligence and we’re thrown back to before the stone age. Where is rational thinking demonstrated in that preposterous idea? “. . . original sin as a reality must be placed under category 1.” Suppose, for a moment, the symbolism of Genesis in the Bible story was misunderstood. There is another possible interpretation, i.e. that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents the birth of human reason; awareness that choices were possible and survival would very much depend on making the right choices. Another simple thought; at every level of evolution since the birth of reason, our gifted species makes millions upon millions of mental choices every day. Can anyone place hand on heart and say that we’re truly wired in to the highest principals we can envision?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Malachi II, this post is a resurrection of an old post that I made over two years ago--debating with my buddy, sidelined! (thats why I brought it back---to get a fresh response from sidelined.) Now that you have commented, however, let me see if I can revise my O.P. in light of how I would say it today:
Revised O.P. CATEGORY#1:SC God exists.( A-priori Reasoning. ) He is the origin of all wisdom. Humans may well have evolved and/or been imparted and/or created---it does not matter. The idea is that God imagined us long before we imagined Him (and/or other religious ideas and myths and legends) CATEGORY#2:SB Human wisdom is the origin of all ideas, beliefs, and thought concepts. We made god up because we needed an explanation. All religious stories, myths, fables, and legends are of necessity products of the ever developing human imagination and archtype symbolism. For the sake of this argument, it must be allowed that category #1 is a possibility. (In other words, respect my belief.)I can see some questions coming at me. Such as: How can we tell if God as you describe Him is an a-priori fact or a well thought out belief and product of your imagination? Answer: You can't. For the sake of this argument, lets assume that any category #1 believer is somehow endowed with wisdom from an external source, defined as God. An SB person may or may not be an Atheist/Agnostic, but their style of reasoning is not based on a-priori faith. It is based on scientific principles such as Empiricism, Scholasticism, Critical Thinking, and Deductive Reasooning. Now lets observe what happens when the two philosophies engage in a debate: SC: God is real! I have experienced impartations and revelations from Him! SB: "Prove to me that God is real! (in other words, use Critical Thinking, Evidence, and Deductive Reasoning to convince me.) SC: (defiantly) I know that I know! One cannot prove God through science! SB: (smugly) Our source is the same...our own minds! You need a shrink! (Besides, if your God is so great, why can't He just reveal Him/herself to me?) SC: (pleadingly) You need to just open up and trust God! He knows you better than you know yourself! He will reveal Himself to you! SB: (patiently) I have tried that and have observed nothing. In the end, its all about belief since we have no facts to work with.I can only trust my tools of critical thinking and deductive reasoning that my education has given me. When I see people like you, they are often irrational, dogmatic, and hopelessly stuck in circular reasoning and arguments based only upon scripture, which I dont rate as a valid source. SC; (hopefully) Well lets keep talking and getting along as friends, then. I won't preach at you any more, but I am trusting what I believe and I believe that My God shall some day reach you and those who think like you. SB: (realistically) I'll keep my mind open only because I trust that you are not a fundie lunatic! We shall continue to get along as friends, but my hope for you is that you expand your intellect and quit trusting only that Bible you have! Open your mind!
Thats how my new Opening Post would read, Malachi II! So which one are you? SC or SB? This message has been edited by Phat, 04-27-2006 06:56 AM Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
For example, when subconsciously a person has a ”Eureka’ moment and either invents or designs a completely new (say) device that revolutionises the fortunes or otherwise of humanity, is it beyond reason to suggest that the inspired idea was obtained from a source other than intelligence or wisdom? I am thinking of a Universal Mind that is far removed from any material reality - and thank God for that! In a recent study researchers provided experimental subjects with feature and price data on new cars. One cohort was left to dwell on this material; the other cohort was distracted with cognitive tasks such as sorting, etc. The distracted cohort performed better on choosing the best feature-price vehicle, suggesting the (pre/sub/un/other-than-fully) conscious mind outpaces the conscious mind when it comes to complex, multifactorial decision making--"sleep on it" may be excellent advice, indeed. We know that learning in general, and especially learning new cognitive skills, remaps synaptic connections: the plastic brain responds biologically to demands. So why reach for a Universal Mind--an abstraction without apparent evidence--to explain such phenomena? Clearly, given the history of breakthroughs in science, inspiration and intuition favor the prepared mind: general relativity and the benzene ring did not grace the thoughts of entomologists. It appears that our own brains are capable of both making the Eureka! leap and tracing the natural explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Omni, I take it that you would be an
SB type of person rather than an SC right? From what I know of you, you have had a long and colorful life full of many experiences. You trust your wisdom and common sense that has served you well over the years. I take it that you see little incentive to trust a God that you cannot see or perceive then....am I right? BTW how did you like my revised post in message 51? This message has been edited by Phat, 04-27-2006 07:23 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Phat writes: Omni, I take it that you would be an SB type of person rather than an SC right? Yes, Phat, that category would fit me best, though I do recognize that SC remains a possibility.
I take it that you see little incentive to trust a God that you cannot see or perceive then....am I right? I am truly agnostic on matters supernatural, although believers and atheists alike often seem impatient with an open mind that is willing to hold belief/disbelief in suspense, as though it were a weakness. It isn't a matter of trust so much as credence. I admit and respect the inner experiences that lead others to belief, though similar experiences have not led me there. I simply have yet to encounter phenomena, internal or external, that cannot be understood by natural causes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Omni writes: A truly honest and worthy answer in which I have a lot of respect, as well. Just as gardens that are tilled tend to be more productive, minds that are open tend to grow and fullfill eventual destiny...(IMHO)
I admit and respect the inner experiences that lead others to belief, though similar experiences have not led me there. I simply have yet to encounter phenomena, internal or external, that cannot be understood by natural causes.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024