|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Are Christians Afraid To Doubt? | |||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Well said Nator.
You did for yourself what I teach in my sessions. If everyone could do what you have done I would be out of a job and a lot more people would lead a lot better lives.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
CTD writes: Likewise trust isn't without basis. Just think of anyone you trust or distrust and ask yourself whether or not you have a reason. Well, yes, I certainly do. Thats the foundation of building trust. You trust that someone will act in a way they perport to. Following multiple examples of congruous behaviour we can be confident we can predict the behaviour of a trusted individual to an acceptable level of certainty. I trust my friends because they have acted in a demonstrably concistant manner towards me.
CTD writes: How is 'religion' anything other than trusting God (or for some, priests and other delegates)? One is asked to trust without any demonstration of the trust worthyness of a god or religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Rob writes: But in saying that, we are creating in our minds an image of what 'healthy' and functional is. And a good thing, too!
Rob writes: But I am concerned that many 'counsellors' do away with the notion of 'unhealthy' altogether. Event though I don't counsel, I certainly would point out the existance of 'unhealthy thoughts' to all of my patients.
Rob writes: Who do we look to as an example of filling both roles? We don't need examples. We need to do what we need to do achieve what we want: as Nator did so well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Seems to me he/she is good at putting you at ease. This is a good tool to have for engendering trust.
But it does high light that feeling at ease is different to trust. Now I'm going home to get pasted Edited by Larni, :
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
CTD writes: Just try to hit a pitched ball with a bat using logic. The formulae are easy to find. You can do math in your head, right? Use a calculator if you must. I think intuition's a much better tool for the job. You are quite wrong. Your brain uses a funtion called Optic Tau: Optic Tau is r(x)=x/z The ratio of distance -x to approach velocity z gives a first oder approximation on contact. All seeing creatures use this equation from flies to herring guls to humans throwing and catching. It is a mathematical proccess of cognition that occures in the time it takes (using a throw and catch analogy) only the time it takes for the ball to reach it's arc apex. From here you can catch it blind if you practice (I know I'v done it). By then your brain has done the maths to catch the ball. It is not intuition, it is very rappid cognitive process using physics and extrapolation of tragectories and velocities. All very logic based.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
CTD writes: You can do these things without ever learning math, can you not? True, but you must learn to connect what you see with your actions. If you have never used the actions to catch you will be very bad at it.
CTD writes: Otherwise you couldn't know anything until you learned language. This is in fact true; can you remember not being able to think in words?
CTD writes: Some of the most basic, important, fundamental things we know are the ones we learned before we could speak, let alone apply formal logic to explain them. Conditioning is not thinking, though is it?
CTD writes: No, I don't buy for one minute that everything I can't express logically and rationally is inferior knowledge on that basis alone. It is; in the same way that in school, when you do an exam you are told to 'show your working' and justify how you arrived at your answer. Thats how we can tell we are not just pulling answers out of thin air. If we cannot 'show our working' we could have any old answer written down.
CTD writes: But maybe it's been forgotten that logic isn't foolproof. Just look at the number of logical fallacies available. Are we so perfect that we can catch them all? If so, every post that contains one is evidence of an intentional lie. To commit a logical fallacy is to go against logic. Logic has not failed, the user has failed. But this does not always imply intent, sometimes it is ignorance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
CTD writes: "Logic is not a tool which can guarantee perfect results". Would that be a better way to put it? You are right, it is not a tool to guarentee perfect results: nothing can. 'Intuition' is so prone to error it's not even funny. If an answer is based on intuition all kinds of bias (observer bias for starters) will creep in and confound ones conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
ana writes: There is that other possibility that you are wrong. There is that possibility that the words of God are living right under your nose. But that possibility is vanishingly small and getting smaller every day.
ana writes: Anyway, water to wine...that would sound to anyone living a few centuries ago much more plausible than would evolution of species and a big bang, complete with life forming from non-life. Much more plausible than landing on the moon. What is the big deal about making water into another liquid? What is so ridiculous about being swallowed by a whale? There are much stranger things that happen every day. This is because we know so much more about the world since we stopped saying 'goddidit'. We learnt to doubt what we were taught and found conscistantly and increasingly more accurate answers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
ana writes: There is that other possibility that you are wrong. There is that possibility that the words of God are living right under your nose. But that possibility is vanishingly small and getting smaller every day.
ana writes: Anyway, water to wine...that would sound to anyone living a few centuries ago much more plausible than would evolution of species and a big bang, complete with life forming from non-life. Much more plausible than landing on the moon. What is the big deal about making water into another liquid? What is so ridiculous about being swallowed by a whale? There are much stranger things that happen every day. This is because we know so much more about the world since we stopped saying 'goddidit'. We learnt to doubt what we were taught and found conscistantly and increasingly more accurate answers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
CTD writes: Have you any plausible scenario by which the martyrs who testified to the resurrection of Jesus were deceived? If so, you're welcome to submit it. They were delusional. I'v met people who believe they have to keep their hand on their head at all times or their head will fall off. I'v met people who attempted suicide because of what they believed was true. We've all read about cults who do kill themselves because of what they believe to be true. And it's all bollocks you know. It's all a brain malfunction, an attribution error and an inability to disconfirm erroneous perceptual information. Why do you think paranoid schizophrenics sincerely beleive they are being victimised? Are they right? No, they are not. The brain can do some wonderful things but it can also fuck up in a catastrophic, terminal way; I present your martrys.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024