Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is belief necessary?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 61 of 94 (156857)
11-06-2004 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by grace2u
11-06-2004 8:47 PM


You have the evidence of the testimony of millions. How can you outright discount this as evidence?
Because the testimony only proves that millions believe, not that what they believe in is true.
The vast majority of that testimony, by the way, isn't exactly very certain. Most believers, when asked, would say something like "I can't prove that God exists, but I believe that he does." Even multiplied by millions, that's not evidence that God exists.
And there's certainly thousands of atheists. What's their problem? And what about all the people in other religions, which taken together outnumber Christianity? There's a number of problems with the Mob argument, not the least of which is that any argument ad populum is fallacious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by grace2u, posted 11-06-2004 8:47 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by grace2u, posted 11-06-2004 11:44 PM crashfrog has replied

  
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 94 (156889)
11-06-2004 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by crashfrog
11-06-2004 9:17 PM


Because the testimony only proves that millions believe, not that what they believe in is true.
Its not that they have a proof for the existance of God but they do "know" that He exists. Many extremely rational intelligent people have made this claim. Not that they have a proof - but that they know He exists. They know this because He has revealed Himself to them. The premise is not capable of being proven in the traditional sense.
The vast majority of that testimony, by the way, isn't exactly very certain. Most believers, when asked, would say something like "I can't prove that God exists, but I believe that he does." Even multiplied by millions, that's not evidence that God exists.
I do not expect a non-believer to understand this, but the Christian simply knows. We don't believe in the sense that one might say I believe it will snow tomorrow. The belief/trust in Christ is not a leap of faith as you might think it is. The term belief is used but a true believer simply knows that it's true. They know because God does things in their lives to demonstrate His reality. Answered prayers, conviction, speaking to the believer through prayer and His written word, through communion with other saints and with Christ Himself, through spiritual truths being revealed. These in no way provide a proof for an agnostic or atheist, however they are not intended to do so.
One should not look at the exestential claim of the Christian deity as you would any other claim of existance(Bahnsen). It is quite different. If you beleive in only what can be objectively proven then you open yourself up to all kinds of irrational conclusions. For one, you simply do not know if the Christian God exists, nor will you ever as long as you presuppose He doesn't. You have started with the premise that He is false and have tossed out any evidence presented to you that would suggest otherwise. All the while, demonstrating your precommitment to atheism or at a minimum to an anti-Christian position.
And there's certainly thousands of atheists. What's their problem?
You can not compare the thousands of atheists to the thousands (or millions) of Christians. Atheists in general do not have an atheistic experience. They might be professing believers and wake up one day feeling that they've been freed from some bond of religion but this is quite different from one who claims that they've met and been changed by their maker. The claim of having met someone is different than the claim of not believing in a certain person. For one, how can an atheist ever really know that God doesn't exist. It is an impossible position to have. Couple this with the contrary postions that many extremely intelligent and rational people have (professing theists) and you have a foolish position (atheism).
Concerning other religions being able to make the same claim as Christianity, the argument is only being presented to one who claims Christianity if false. A muslim could make the exact same argument. There are millions of changed muslims out there I'm sure. The argument made against a muslim would be more theological in nature - hitting at the core beliefs on the nature of God , nature of man and teachings concerning divine revelation.
You have not directly addressed the problem you have concerning the testimony of millions of sane individuals. You claim that they don't really believe, that they are only fairly sure or hopefull. The millions making this claim would say they know that Christ is real (He speaks to them - through prayer and holy scripture). You dodge it by saying others can make the same claim includign atheists. I argue that the atheistic claim is different, it is a belief claim, not a knowing claim. You argue that muslims could make this claim, I agree. The argument is presented to you - not to a muslim who would at least agree that God exists. The debate with the muslim hinges around the nature of God.
Regards,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 11-06-2004 9:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2004 1:30 AM grace2u has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 63 of 94 (156908)
11-07-2004 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by sidelined
11-06-2004 5:28 PM


Reply to Sidlined's Omnipotence post
Thanks for your reply.
I never once have said that beliefs were worthless.
I drew this from your statement that historically when people let go of superstitious beliefs then society progressed. While this is true, it doesn't mean belief in God is a bad thing. I figured you were making parallel the belief in God and other superstitions.
Beliefs that are not backed by evidence that rules out the vagaries of human weaknesses in observation and understanding are suspect from the start.
Sure, they are suspect, but not proven false. And I have enough information to reasonably believe my beliefs are true.
The belief in a god or not is neither good nor bad in my eyes but merely unecessary for understanding the world.
It is not necessary for having an understanding, but that understanding may not be the right one.
That I see the idea of god as being based only in our minds is not an assumption but an observation.
No it is not. How do you prove that the two of my friends never saw supernatural revelations from God? How do you prove that Paul or the prophets or Moses or Jeremiah or Abraham never did either? How do prove Jesus did not perform miracles? How do prove that all the believers throughout the centuries who spoke in tongues were never directed by God to do so?
I think there is a rule in logic that says simply because you cannot prove empirically the positive true doesn't mean the negative must be true.
We simply can't prove anything therefore it IS an ASSUMPTION to say that God is only based in the imagination of our minds.
I am asking for evidence which is not forthcoming and as I see it there is nothing in the concept that is not without assumption.
That's correct. The only assumption I make is that the above mentioned people and others were telling the truth. That is where I have placed my faith and trust.
It would be an odd thing to try and prove the negative of something that does not offer evidence.
I agree! But I have heard many here argue against the existence of God with rational arguments based on assumptions. My point is that this is meaningless.
Atheist simply ask for evidence before belief in extraordinary things.
I REALIZE this. I've already shown in another thread that it is impossible to rule out the supernatural. Let's say you have three friends that just went on a vacation to the Rockies. They come back after a week and start telling you all about what happened on their trip. Would you believe them? Sure, why not. It is possible that they are simply lying to you or exaggerating and it is just as possible that they are telling the truth. They could show you pictures, but even these are not beyond forgery. Heck, your friends might even be figments of your imagination. You could be schizofrenic. You can't be 100% sure of anything. We could be "computer" programs in a matrix. We could be characters in a dreamer... There are an infinite number of possibilities.
But you choose to believe that you are in fact what you seem to be and that your friends are real and that they did go on a trip to the Rockies and that they did do and see all the things they claim.
Trusting your friends to tell you the truth about their vacation is no different than me trusting my friends who have told me about what God has shown them or no different than me trusting the revelations of all the hundreds of other people who claimed divine revelation from the one true God of Israel, the Lord Jesus Christ.
I can't prove any of it, but I believe it is true just like I believe we are two real sentient beings having this conversation.
(as a side note: I should probably look into Descartes and Descartes error... wasn't he the guy that decided the only thing he could be %100 percent sure of was that he existed? That is sort of where my thoughts have led me.)
Then what prevents your feelings from being the incorrect ones?
Nothing! It is a possibility that you and I and all of us are dead wrong about everything. But there are certain things I BELIEVE to be true.
But the lack of sense is because we assume that the world itself oeprates according to our beliefs or our wishes yet time and again the universe has shown that it is not structured by human expectation.
Yep. That is what I was saying. If the universe is not structerd by human expectation, why should God be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by sidelined, posted 11-06-2004 5:28 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by sidelined, posted 11-07-2004 10:55 AM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 69 by lfen, posted 11-07-2004 4:45 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 64 of 94 (156913)
11-07-2004 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by grace2u
11-06-2004 11:44 PM


Its not that they have a proof for the existance of God but they do "know" that He exists.
I would disagree. Most believers know that they can't know for sure that God exists, but the believe he does.
If anyone claims that they know for sure that God exists, then they're simply mistaken. That's not knowable.
I do not expect a non-believer to understand this, but the Christian simply knows.
And what is the ontological basis for that knowledge? In what way is that basis distinguishable from just making things up?
I'm not impressed by the idea that the only way to know that God exists is to pretend like you already do. I would point out that the knowledge gained from science works whether you believe in it or not.
You have started with the premise that He is false and have tossed out any evidence presented to you that would suggest otherwise.
It's funny that you say that, because I started as a believer, but the evidence forced me to change my mind. So, I'm actually quite the opposite of who you say I am.
All the while, demonstrating your precommitment to atheism or at a minimum to an anti-Christian position.
What I had, actually, was a precommitment to Christianity. It was the evidence that convinced me otherwise. But, you know, please do go on trying to psychoanalyze me over the net. Your failure is quite hilarious.
For one, how can an atheist ever really know that God doesn't exist.
Well, we don't. That's not what atheism is. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God. Why do we have a lack of belief in God? Because there exists no evidence that God exists.
You have not directly addressed the problem you have concerning the testimony of millions of sane individuals.
They're simply all mistaken. That's not very surprising; it's not uncommon for very large groups of people to be mistaken about things.
As I said before, the argument ad populum is still fallacious. That hasn't changed. Premises are not made true by the fervency or plurality of their supporters; rather, they are made true by evidence.
I argue that the atheistic claim is different, it is a belief claim, not a knowing claim.
Not so. No belief required. Atheism is the lack of belief, and it's the knowledge that there is no evidence for God. Of course, you might have known that, had you actually researched the position of the atheist, instead of attacking a charicature.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-07-2004 01:30 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by grace2u, posted 11-06-2004 11:44 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by grace2u, posted 11-07-2004 10:16 AM crashfrog has replied

  
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 94 (156931)
11-07-2004 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by crashfrog
11-07-2004 1:30 AM


If anyone claims that they know for sure that God exists, then they're simply mistaken. That's not knowable
Popper would say that to the proposition "can one know for sure that God exists", if you can't falsify your own position - which apparently you can't, then your own position is a dogmatic one. His words, not mine.
So while we're on the subject of falsifiability, what evidence could someone provide to you that would convince you the God exists?
I'm not impressed by the idea that the only way to know that God exists is to pretend like you already do. I would point out that the knowledge gained from science works whether you believe in it or not.
Knowing and pretending is different. Thousands of missionaries don't leave their comfortable lifestyle in the US for somethign they are pretending to believe in. Martyrs don't die for something they are pretending to believe in. Concnerning science, I agree with your statement. I would contend however that there is no rational basis for this given the problem of induction science can not address(Bahnsen).
It's funny that you say that, because I started as a believer, but the evidence forced me to change my mind.
What evidence was this?
Because there exists no evidence that God exists.
This demosntrates again your dogmatic attempt to make sense of your position. You can not say that there is NO evidence that GOd exists. THere is at least some evidence in this (I would argue the evidence is compelling). Look - I would at least grant that there is evidence of Islam being correct, as I would any other religion. Its existance today is at a minimum some evidence. To make the dogmatic claim that there is no evidence simply demonstrates your inability to seperate what you think you know from what reality is. As Plato would put it, you are in a cave, blindly believing that your cave is the only reality. You immediately discount any evidence presented to you in an attempt to remain in your cave, a slave to your own perverted reality. Begging the atheistic question will not help solidify your position - only demonstrate your own inability to deal with epistemological questions.
You are probably the funniest person on this forum Crash - lets add some humor to your comments - you're getting a little too serious.
Christ have mercy,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2004 1:30 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2004 12:04 PM grace2u has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 66 of 94 (156939)
11-07-2004 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Hangdawg13
11-07-2004 12:53 AM


Re: Reply to Sidlined's Omnipotence post
Hangdawg13
While this is true, it doesn't mean belief in God is a bad thing
Of course not.I would simply argue though that the belief is not some
thing based on a real entity.The history of belief in god shows a definite correlation between the secular understanding of science and the degree of fine tuning to the role of god in playing a part in explaining those things we do not understand.
And I have enough information to reasonably believe my beliefs are true.
Do you? I cannot tell the extent of such a statements veracity.
It is not necessary for having an understanding, but that understanding may not be the right one.
I do not think understanding of the world is gained by placing the answer for human actions and interactions in this tiny speck of a backwater galaxy as being of the inspiration of that which you would argue also created the rest of the surrounding universe.
How do you prove that the two of my friends never saw supernatural revelations from God? How do you prove that Paul or the prophets or Moses or Jeremiah or Abraham never did either? How do prove Jesus did not perform miracles? How do prove that all the believers throughout the centuries who spoke in tongues were never directed by God to do so?
It is not necessary to prove that. I can no more prove that the schizophrenics visions and voices are not true,though they mey be "real" to them.I do not give them weight as we can explain the reason for the actual appearence of their reality.
Historical figures are immune from direct invesigation but cases can easily be made for non supernatural causes of these events.This does not disprove of course but rather offer up a scenario consistent with the knowledge we do have about humans and the errors of perception we are prone to.
Ah yes Glossalia or speaking in tongues.This is a phenomena rife with the error of human minds.I will answer further in a seperate thread but I ask if you have witnessed a speaking in tongues? I have.
I think there is a rule in logic that says simply because you cannot prove empirically the positive true doesn't mean the negative must be true
Hence the development of science.Because of the vagaries of humans and their agendas in life as well as our ease in deluding ourselves science does not pursue truth as such.It instead takes the weight of evidence and devises models that have the best explanatory potential.
God has consistently fallen in power of explanation through the ages and has retreated to domains where it is even now slowly losing ground.As we illuminate the dark corners of the world we have found that somethings that were once considered gods work were not so.
We simply can't prove anything therefore it IS an ASSUMPTION to say that God is only based in the imagination of our minds.
So we don't prove it,that is not a problem.That we can explain far more things consistently across the board without a god than with one puts the weight of evidence on a non supernatural cause.As I will explain in our further talk on glossalia the human mind is rather easily duped even by,and sometime more so because of,a persons level of intelligence.
The only assumption I make is that the above mentioned people and others were telling the truth. That is where I have placed my faith and trust.
Certainly. However,that people whom you trust can themselves be decieved is no odd occurence and that is why objective investigation is important.Before I piss you off by saying these things do you not think that an actual entity such as god {Devils advocate position here. Yes I know the irony} would be more or less apparent the further we investigate and not be dependent upon faith?
But I have heard many here argue against the existence of God with rational arguments based on assumptions. My point is that this is meaningless
Assumptions of some level are necessary.What is progressive in human understanding of the world is through taking the phenomena and subjecting them to ruthless scrutiny of these assunmptions constantly.There are no sacred cows.
I REALIZE this. I've already shown in another thread that it is impossible to rule out the supernatural
Correct, We need not rule it out.If the level of probability falls to that of green elephants or slate gray roses the lack of impossibilty does not increase the likelihood of the existence of such.
Let's say you have three friends that just went on a vacation to the Rockies. They come back after a week and start telling you all about what happened on their trip. Would you believe them? Sure, why not. It is possible that they are simply lying to you or exaggerating and it is just as possible that they are telling the truth. They could show you pictures, but even these are not beyond forgery. Heck, your friends might even be figments of your imagination. You could be schizofrenic. You can't be 100% sure of anything. We could be "computer" programs in a matrix. We could be characters in a dreamer... There are an infinite number of possibilities.
Absolutely.I can again weigh the likelihood of events such as these. Indeed it is commmon among males to exaggerate the experience of such things and I can recognize these for what they are.If my friend stated to me that he went to Yosemite and climbed The Nose on El Capitan in 4 hours{the record being 4Hours 22 minutes}I cannot say it is impossible but it would certainly be at the bottom of the probability scale.Do I say to him he is bullshitting me? No I ask for extraordinary evidence such a third party verification by someone known to neither of us.
As for not being 100% sure of anything that is correct. Does this mean we say it is all correct or likely? No.Thus the human endevour of science.Taking the neutral road and testing by experiment under controlled condition to rule out deception.That we have progressed from trepanning to modern methods of medicine is because of the weighing of evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-07-2004 12:53 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-08-2004 1:56 AM sidelined has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 67 of 94 (156952)
11-07-2004 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by grace2u
11-07-2004 10:16 AM


Popper would say that to the proposition "can one know for sure that God exists", if you can't falsify your own position - which apparently you can't, then your own position is a dogmatic one.
Well, my position is that the existence of God is not falsifiable, so I guess Popper and I agree. You, on the other hand, seem to disagree.
So while we're on the subject of falsifiability, what evidence could someone provide to you that would convince you the God exists?
The same evidence that convinces me that you exist. Of course, convincing me that God has all the properties that Christians say he does is an entirely different matter. I don't know how you would substantiate claims of infinite power with a finite display of power. Certainly the world we live in is not consistent with both benevolence and omnipotence, so one or the other or both of those are right out.
What evidence was this?
For one thing, the fact that evil in the world is not consistent with a benevolent, omnipotent God. It's just not, under any circumstances. All the arguments to refute this rely on attempts to absolve God of responsibility for his actions and inaction, and that's even more evidence that God would not be benevolent - he doesn't take responsibility.
There are other things, for instance, the fact that God does not, ever, intervene in any situation in a detectable, different-than-random way. If the Hand of God is at work, causing things, we should be able to detect it from its effects.
Of course, there's the fact that Christianity has no fundamental difference than any other dogmatic belief in mythology. Its adherents are instructed in ways that promote circular thought and preclude genuine inquiry into the world; the only way the belief survives is through insularity. None of the qualities of religious belief, including Christianity, are indicative of belief in something true, but rather, belief in something deperately wanted to be true.
You can not say that there is NO evidence that GOd exists.
I can, and will. There is simply no evidence that points to the existence of God that isn't more simply explained by other things. When you apply all the more likely explanations first, you run out of evidence that can only be explained by the existence of God. There is simply no such evidence.
You are probably the funniest person on this forum Crash
No way. Dan Carroll and MrHambre are always way funnier than me.
I'm sorry you think I'm getting too serious. I was under the impression that this was a serious topic. Was I wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by grace2u, posted 11-07-2004 10:16 AM grace2u has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 68 of 94 (156958)
11-07-2004 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by grace2u
11-06-2004 8:47 PM


grace2u
Love, logic, order in the cosmos and moral truths
How is god obvious from these in your eyes?
This is my point, you chose to assign the explanation of these concepts in your own precomitted ways, just like I and any other theist does the same only assigns them in theistic terms.
No I have spent 40 years weighing the various arguements.Curiously I started in grade one with these big questions as a result of a kid in my elementary class whom I liked and who was tragically killed by a car on his way home.
I did not know about it immediately. I only knew he was absent from school and one day I arrived home and my older sister and brothers had been talking about something in the local newspaper when I walked in the door to hear them discussing it.
I asked what they were talking about and they hesitantly showed me the newspaper article outlining the accident. I was to young I suppose to actually grasp the significance of the event but I do remember that I was struck by the graveness of my family's talking about it.I always wondered what the meaning of it was.I investigated over the decades and was unconvinced by the theist point of view and came to settle on atheism as the most sound of solid stances.
For example, I provide the evidence of millions of witnesses to Christs glory and life changing power. You might dismiss this as wishfull thinking, I attribute this as evidence of Christs power and reality
No I would question the point of following large numbers simply because they are large numbers.If the hordes are racing towards the wrong direction for whatever reason you do not change the direction by joining them.
At the same time however, you probably would never attribute George Washingtons existnace to wishfull thinking.
But we can evidence multiple independent sources on George Washintons existence.
I maintain that the testimony of millions of people is extrodinary evidence
I am sure we could find similar testimony in Islam or Buddhism.Do we follw them for that reason?
Combine this with the philosophical prowess of Christianity to deal with the human experience,
Could you elaborate on this as I am not certain of your meaning here?
To outright deny Christianities claims demonstrates ones own inability to seperate their own presuppositions from their "claimed" sincere examinations of the facts. This tendency demonstrates your own precomitments to atheism and in no way is epistemologicaly sound.
Have I done this? Can you tell me if you regularly subject your beliefs to examination and if so in what way?
You say that there is no evidence of any world beyond what a narrow materialisitic approach can discover. How is this free-thought or sincere searching?
I have not said this. I have stipulated that the investigation of suchmust be testable else it cannot be considered viable since without such we cannot rule out the likehood of anything being as likely as another.Can you provide evidence of a non material world?
It is extremely simplistic and demonstrates the atheists inability to deal with the human experience
Again please elaborate.
The greatest scientist to ever walk the earth were believers. They looked at science as an art - trying to unravel the mind of God.
How do you judge them to be the greatest and who might they be?
All this approach leaves you with is that you know only believe that which you can test and study(you pick and choose what you believe in or whos claims you trust - probably believing most scientist writings in journals but denying the testimony of a Christian who claims they have met God)
To test and question is the result of not believing.Experiment is what is necessary to winnow out that which stands up to investigation from that which is merely accepted.Science does not claim certainty and never will.It is a meaurement of what we can say about the world around us seperate from our wishes and and beliefs.
This is like an ant saying he doesn't believe in humans because he can't understand them in their fullness.
That is a poor analogy.We humans do not know ants in their fullness either yet we do not doubt their existence do we? Why is that?
You have the evidence of the testimony of millions. How can you outright discount this as evidence?
In what way is this evidence sir?How may it be possibly subject to falsification even in principle?
By sound rational thought, I simply mean the history of philosophy. You will find very few philosophers that will deny Gods existance outright. In fact- some of the most influential thinkers of the last 2000 years where Christians( Marcus Aurelius,CS Lewis, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, John Locke, Hegel, Newtone, Pascal and on it goes).
Feynman,Dirac,Gould,Dawkins,Bondi,Sagan,Asimov,Smolin,Watson,Darwin{atheists all} are far more influential on modern science and thus the philosophy that trails behind as always than any of your list. So what? That a scientist or a philosopher reaches levels of fame and fortune is not a measure of any importance concerning the validity of their srguements.It is the investigation of their arguements and the constant criticism of these that makes or breaks them.

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by grace2u, posted 11-06-2004 8:47 PM grace2u has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 69 of 94 (157006)
11-07-2004 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Hangdawg13
11-07-2004 12:53 AM


Re: Reply to Sidlined's Omnipotence post
I should probably look into Descartes and Descartes error... wasn't he the guy that decided the only thing he could be %100 percent sure of was that he existed? That is sort of where my thoughts have led me.)
Hangdawg,
I found this translation:
But I observed that, while I was thus resolved to feign that everything was false, I who thought must of necessity be somewhat; and remarking this truth--I think, therefore I am--was so firm and so assured that all the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics were unable to shake it, I judged that I could unhesitatingly accept it as the first principle of the philosophy I was seeking.
Rene Descartes
Great Books Vol 1
/ithinkth_bga.html (I split this line to keep the page on the screen so one would have to reconstitute it to check it out)
Antonio Damasio wrote a very good book on contemporary knowledge of brain function, Deschartes' Error.
Thought is the ego and the ego's knowing of itself.
They come back after a week and start telling you all about what happened on their trip. Would you believe them? Sure, why not. It is possible that they are simply lying to you or exaggerating and it is just as possible that they are telling the truth.
Lying/telling the truth it's this oversimplification and use of false dichotomies that drives me to distraction with Christian apologetics.
They could be mistaken about some things in a myrid of ways. It's a continuum not a dicotomy!!!! And a multi diminsional continuum to boot.
The human brain can create a good many extrordinary experiences and I am bracketing out psychosis and mental illness. The dicotomy of fundamentalism seems to allow only two choices. If you agree with the experience it is an infallible vision of God's truth, if you don't it is a totally false counterfeit by Satan. That's it. One or the other. My Christian sects authority says A,B,C absolutely true, all the rest X,Y,Z absolutely false and EVIL!!! We are good, everybody else the thralls of Satan!!! Join us, agree with us, or go to Hell!
Can't you see a possible problem here? Is it so seductive to be one of the few select that you won't bestir yourself to look for other possiblities? I am not hating Christians, I am focusing on one aspect of your approach to religion that can be found in fundamentalist of other religions also. I decry the narrow chauvinistic black and white thinking that arises from a smug security or a desire for smug security.
Your friends could have had an experience of something beyond the ego, a truly divine experience but afterwards in trying to understand it in their everyday ego state they unintentionaly misconstrue it. They could have had a vivid experience brought on by high altitude. They could have had an experience brought on by their intense desire to experience things they've heard about in their religious studies. It's interesting that Christians have Christian experiences, Krishna lovers experiences of Krishna, Buddhist have experiences of the Buddha, etc. They can be sincere and yet at the same time they are the source of their experiences which only feels like it is an other.
Literal Christianity is a pre rational immature belief system. It's based on concrete thinking. There was a real garden of Eden, a real talking snake, a world wide flood, and a place called heaven. All things happen just like in the story book. Spirituality is beyond these literal stories. Most likely a majority of the people in the world find life easier to live with the traditional religious beliefs of their culture. When cultures come into conflict it can be religious conflict also. But there is something beyond these naive simplistic answers that serve to make the suffering we endure in this life bearable by the idea that another life will happen after this one that will free us.
To use faith to cling to these ancients myths and keep the ego in harmony with the cultural community is a misuse of faith. It is used to provide conformity to what Pat Robertson, Falwell, the Pope, the Sunnis, the Shites, orthodox Rabbi's and so on and so forth want. It is religious (i.e. human cultural authority) rather than spiritual.
I'm not saying one shouldn't choose to live a traditional faith but I am saying that for those with the intelligence to understand the world with more thoughtful perception it's irresponsible to defend a primitive literalism. There is a lot of wisdom in Buddhism and Advaita and Taoism and modern science and philosophy and semantics that is unavailable if you cling to literal linguistic understanding.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-07-2004 12:53 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-07-2004 11:52 PM lfen has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 70 of 94 (157106)
11-07-2004 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by lfen
11-07-2004 4:45 PM


Re: Reply to Sidlined's Omnipotence post
Thanks for the reply and your link and info.
Thought is the ego and the ego's knowing of itself.
Just curious, what exactly is the ego? Or is that another word for what scientists are still somewhat baffled by: consciousness.
Lying/telling the truth it's this oversimplification and use of false dichotomies that drives me to distraction with Christian apologetics.
They could be mistaken about some things in a myrid of ways. It's a continuum not a dicotomy!!!! And a multi diminsional continuum to boot.
Well, yes I spose Iagree... but if they really did go to the rockies, it is true to say that they were there. Of course we are assuming again that we are not living in some dream-like illusion or matrix. But even if we were, could we really say it wasn't true?
So are you saying you don't like true/false type scenarios? If so, you must abandon pretty much all human logic, which is okay with me, but you won't get anywhere debating Sidelined.
Is it so seductive to be one of the few select that you won't bestir yourself to look for other possiblities?
I'm sticking with Christ because I believe in Christ, not because I feel smug, self-righteous, and special.
Obviously there are a great many truths found in other religions, but I simply disagree with some of their doctrines and find Christ more worthy of placing my trust in than others.
Literal Christianity is a pre rational immature belief system. It's based on concrete thinking. There was a real garden of Eden, a real talking snake, a world wide flood, and a place called heaven. All things happen just like in the story book. Spirituality is beyond these literal stories.
I agree. EVERYTHING is a picture. All the rituals and laws of the OT were there to show the Israelites a picture of theological truths because they were too dense and lacking of the Spirit get the picture. In the NT with the exception of Christ's parables there's quite a bit more of abstract principles to give us understanding, but still only semantics to convey something beyond the words. Christ's life was a picture as well of many things. Our lives and the world we live in and the struggles we go through and the blessings we are granted are pictures too of something greater.
When Christians get lost in the semantics and the formulas and the traditions of Christianity they "have a form of godliness, but deny it's power."
To use faith to cling to these ancients myths and keep the ego in harmony with the cultural community is a misuse of faith.
To keep in harmony with the cultural community, sometimes it is a misuse. To trust in the veracity of certain stories... I don't see how you can say that is a misuse if you have no way of knowing whether they are true or not.
It is used to provide conformity to what Pat Robertson, Falwell, the Pope, the Sunnis, the Shites, orthodox Rabbi's and so on and so forth want. It is religious (i.e. human cultural authority) rather than spiritual.
I completely agree and its a tragedy and its not what Christianity is about.
I'm not saying one shouldn't choose to live a traditional faith but I am saying that for those with the intelligence to understand the world with more thoughtful perception it's irresponsible to defend a primitive literalism.
Well, like I said I do realize that everything is to some degree a picture and the truth does not lie in the words, thoughts, or even the pictures in our mind's eye, but it lies beyond.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by lfen, posted 11-07-2004 4:45 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by lfen, posted 11-08-2004 1:16 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 71 of 94 (157123)
11-08-2004 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Hangdawg13
11-07-2004 11:52 PM


Re: Reply to Sidlined's Omnipotence post
Hangdawg,
A thoughtful reply, thanks.
So are you saying you don't like true/false type scenarios? If so, you must abandon pretty much all human logic, which is okay with me, but you won't get anywhere debating Sidelined.
It is time I reread: Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics
by Alfred Korzybski
One doesn't have to abandon 2 value logic but can extend logic to include multivalued logic. But my memory for Korzybski's system grows misty once I write "the map is not the territory". I guess next time I'm by the University I'll have check out a copy and start rereading it.
I don't think I've ever debated sidelined. I'm not much of a debater anyway. I think of what I do as more discussion than debate, but I've no idea if anyone else would agree.
Just curious, what exactly is the ego? Or is that another word for what scientists are still somewhat baffled by: consciousness.
Good question You're trying to embarrass me aren't you?
I don't know how to put it exactly because none of this psychology stuff is well defined yet, but then I like mucking about in uncertainty. I don't equate ego and consciousness. Ego is the sense of self that we function with consciously. It is a set of skills, images, and feelings. It can be defined as self (small s) whereas Self (capital S) can be set equal to consciousness.
Considerations: Most of the brain function is not conscious or of limited consciousness. The total physical organism constitutes a set of functions that is greater than the set that we are conscious of. The ego is what we think we are, our "I" which we think is unique, important, our identity. Different psychological theories will have different degrees of agreement and disagreement so I'm just trying to give a general pointing at the phenomena I'm talking about.
I think of the ego as contents, as an object. Consciousness is the subject for which ego is an object. If I say I'm a nice but grumpy person for example, is niceness or grumpyness aware of being? Or is it being that is aware of those qualities? So I am not nice, or grumpy that is just the way we reflectively talk about the organisms awareness of it's qualities.
The idea I was getting at comes from the nondualists. They deny that there is a thinker who thinks thoughts, and assert that the thinker is the thought (note, not denying there is a brain that thinks, but that that brain doesn't constitute a thinker in the sense of a self).
When Descartes wrote "I think therefore I am", and if I weren't so lazy I'd go google to find what he wrote in French, I'm saying he was literally correct in a way I don't think he intended. I think he meant that thinking gave evidence that he existed as an entity, whereas I'm saying that he only exists as the thinking/talking/idea that he exists. By he I don't mean his body which is a sub process of processes that could be traced back to the big bang if there was such an occurance, two process called his parents contributed ovum and sperm and spun off another process (all this in the sense that a chicken is an egg's way of making another egg, i.e. the whole selfish gene thing (am I just getting tired or am I really beginning to sound like Brad?))
Just as a reference point, much of what I'm writing is my understanding of Ramana Maharshi's teachings.
To keep in harmony with the cultural community, sometimes it is a misuse. To trust in the veracity of certain stories... I don't see how you can say that is a misuse if you have no way of knowing whether they are true or not.
I wasn't being explicit enough. I was referring to stories such as the Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, Exodus, etc. Stories that I think are clearly mythological (meaning a form of transmission of teachings that is not historically literal) and yet which are sometimes offered as history or even science.
EVERYTHING is a picture.
I might say along those lines that the ego is the picture we have of ourselves. But consciousness isn't a picture it's what is aware of the picture. Consciousness is not tall, or red, or heavy, or big. We can't describe the subject, we only describe the object. As long as there is a dualistic separation of self/other subject/object we aren't the object but we mistake ourselves for the object (ego).
I'm getting too tired. I'm not at this point understanding myself. Good night.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-07-2004 11:52 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-08-2004 3:19 PM lfen has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 72 of 94 (157128)
11-08-2004 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by sidelined
11-07-2004 10:55 AM


Re: Reply to Sidlined's Omnipotence post
Thank you for your reply.
I would simply argue though that the belief is not some
thing based on a real entity.
Well you can argue that all you want, (BTW you said an atheist does not argue this) but simply because you do not believe God is a real entity does not make it so. And yes I realize simply because I DO believe God is a real entity that does not make it so.
I do not think understanding of the world is gained by placing the answer for human actions and interactions in this tiny speck of a backwater galaxy as being of the inspiration of that which you would argue also created the rest of the surrounding universe human actions and interactions in this tiny speck of a backwater galaxy
Come on Sidelined! I thought we were getting somewhere.
Can't you spot the assumption in your statement?
Simply because the universe is 'big' and we are 'small' doesn't say anything as to whether God exists and cares. Just because you think that a caring God would create a universe just big enough for us in order to make us feel important doesn't mean he would act as such.
It is not necessary to prove that.
It is if you're going to discount these things as reason to believe.
I can no more prove that the schizophrenics visions and voices are not true,though they mey be "real" to them.I do not give them weight as we can explain the reason for the actual appearence of their reality.
If you choose to explain all of those things with the mental disorder schizophernia, that is your choice even though there are certain correlations with reality that would make it very difficult to explain away by this disorder.
Ah yes Glossalia or speaking in tongues.This is a phenomena rife with the error of human minds.I will answer further in a seperate thread but I ask if you have witnessed a speaking in tongues? I have.
I wouldn't want to start a thread unless I'd witnessed or experienced it myself. I used to believe it was ALL fake emotional mumbo jumbo. But that's changed. However, I still think there is probably a great deal of that.
Hence the development of science.Because of the vagaries of humans and their agendas in life as well as our ease in deluding ourselves science does not pursue truth as such.It instead takes the weight of evidence and devises models that have the best explanatory potential.
I know what science is and why it is necessary and helpful, but this topic is about belief.
As we illuminate the dark corners of the world we have found that somethings that were once considered gods work were not so.
I still believe it to be all God's work. From the thunder head that rises under principles of convection and evaporation to the supernova in the farthest galaxy. Just because we know how God does a thing doesn't mean God is not the one doing it.
That we can explain far more things consistently across the board without a god than with one puts the weight of evidence on a non supernatural cause.
What? How does belief in God in any way detract from one's ability to understand anything of a scientific nature? (unless of course one is arrogantly over-confident in one's particular interpretation of a creation hymn... (hanging head))
However,that people whom you trust can themselves be decieved is no odd occurence and that is why objective investigation is important.
Well, obviously I am trusting that they are not.
do you not think that an actual entity such as god {Devils advocate position here. Yes I know the irony} would be more or less apparent the further we investigate and not be dependent upon faith?
It depends on if the activity you are investigating is fake or not or if it is from God or not.
Assumptions of some level are necessary.
And wrong assumptions or over simplified statements and logic created in order to rationally defeat an assertion is called a strawman argument. EVERY argument against God is a strawman argument.
If the level of probability falls to that of green elephants or slate gray roses the lack of impossibilty does not increase the likelihood of the existence of such. ...Absolutely.I can again weigh the likelihood of events such as these.
Your talk of probability and likelihood is meaningless! Have you understood anything I've been saying this whole time?
Probablity has nothing more to do with the existence of a supernatural phenomena than does the existence of the universe itself.
Thus the human endevour of science.Taking the neutral road and testing by experiment under controlled condition to rule out deception.That we have progressed from trepanning to modern methods of medicine is because of the weighing of evidence.
Dude... I understand why science is valuable and where it is useful, but we are not dealing with science.
What if God had to be found through science? What about all our poor dumb predecessors? How would they learn of God? What if God were cold impersonal probabilisitic and predictable like science? He would cease to be God.
I understand exactly what you are saying, but I'm afraid you've understood nothing of what I've said. Thanks for the argument though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by sidelined, posted 11-07-2004 10:55 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by MrHambre, posted 11-08-2004 8:43 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 73 of 94 (157182)
11-08-2004 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Hangdawg13
11-08-2004 1:56 AM


Think Before You Believe
HangDawg says,
quote:
Simply because you do not believe God is a real entity does not make it so. And yes I realize simply because I DO believe God is a real entity that does not make it so.
Well, that's very magnanimous of you. However, you assume that it's a level philosophical playing field only because you expect us to believe that God is a real entity is a valid position in the first place.
We atheists are handicapped by our avowed reliance on rational, consistent application of logic. I fully admit that there are many phenomena we don't scientifically understand, but I don't assume that the key to these mysteries will involve the wholesale disposal of evidential empirical inquiry.
It's the believer who is unrestrained by the need to be objective or reasonable. He asserts that reality is whatever he understands it to be, and resents any criticism of his beliefs. It's as if the rest of the world were showing the utmost bad taste by expecting believers to conform to the same rules of human discourse as everyone else.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-08-2004 1:56 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-08-2004 12:01 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 74 of 94 (157192)
11-08-2004 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by RustyShackelford
11-04-2004 2:07 AM


quote:
When I find an atheist or agnostic that's actually prayed and fasted and denied the flesh and still doesn't believe, THEN I'll believe in the atheist that wants to be a theist
I was a practicing Catholic for more than half of my life.
It was easier in many ways.
quote:
but if you don't call to God, how do you expect him to answer you? If you don't seek, how can you find?
I'm an Agnostic. That means that I am open to evidence, all the time.
I just haven't seen or felt or heard any.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-04-2004 2:07 AM RustyShackelford has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 75 of 94 (157197)
11-08-2004 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Phat
11-05-2004 8:16 AM


Re: Hpw do I convince a room of skeptics?
quote:
Since we do not know each other beyond our verbal typed exchanges, none of you would have known me so as to see the changes that the internal, living presence of God has made in my life. Even if you had seen the changes, known my passion, and experienced the relationship with me personally, you would still be the judges of whether to attribute the changes to other reasons rather than to belief in God.
I was once a very unhappy person.
I had a rather, shall we say, interesting upbringing which left me with a low self esteem and a lot of anger and fear.
I worked really hard at getting better because I didn't want to live my life like that. I read books, I talked to people, I wrote letters to the people who hurt me that I never sent, I confronted some of the people who hurt me directly.
I am surrounded by wonderful people, and I have found meaningful work that I love.
The reason I am telling you all of this is because I am a nearly COMPLETELY different person than I was before. I interact very, very differently with everyone I have ever known.
I am really glad that many of my current friends never knew me 10 years ago, because I was, frankly, a mess.
It was before all of this metamorphosis began that I started to question my belief in God. Throught all of this self-improvement and becoming healthy and the transformation, I had no faith at all.
People noticed a difference in me for the positive, just like those people who get "Born Again" tell about, yet I just did the work myself and gave myself the credit for a job well done. I never once, in all of the tears and anguish, ask God for help. It just never occurred to me to do that, because it was ME who needed to do the work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 11-05-2004 8:16 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Phat, posted 11-08-2004 9:51 AM nator has replied
 Message 77 by 1.61803, posted 11-08-2004 10:15 AM nator has replied
 Message 87 by purpledawn, posted 11-09-2004 8:44 AM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024