What to believe, crisis of faith

Aztraph,Nice post. I have a question, and a comment:Question: I'm wondering why you're limiting yourself to considering only the Bible when thinking about non-empirical issues. Furthermore, I get the feeling that you're restricting yourself to somebody else's interpretation of the Bible, not your own. Why?Comment: My inkling is that you need to resign yourself to the fact that you're human. As such, no matter what "exists", there's no way for you to get "special access" to "what is". You'll always have this layer of humanity in the way; not only for listening to what other people have to say, but even when thinking and feeling on your own.That is THE fact of life. Like I think holmes was suggesting, it's a matter of accepting it. From there, I think you just need to find what works for you. I would suggest stop asking questions about truth, and start asking questions about yourself:What is unquestionably "good" to me?
What is unquestionably "meaningful" to me?
What do I like?
What do I dislike?I think you hit on a point that we're struggling with at EvC. Both the Bible and science are open to interpretation. I'd say the key is to find interpretations of both which are consistent with the data (the Bible and scientific observations) and fit with the questions with yourself. Different people have different starting points for doing this, but the need to make a resolution seems to be there for everybody.

It's strange to answer a question with a question. I'd appreciate receiving an answer to my question.I don't feel the need to interpret the Bible for myself. So I wouldn't interpret what your Sunday School teacher said. How could I? Does evolution need to address it? Is it at all an empirical question?Evolution is an empirical theory. It has nothing to say, one way or another, about non-empirical things. So... I wouldn't call that a flaw in evolution theory. If you expect evolution theory to cover that, I would call that a flaw in your expectation.

Aztraph, Sure. I'm happy to give interpretations of things I feel capable of. I'm sorry the example didn't work out; it's hard to interpret things that are given within a larger context that I don't have a handle on. I'm a cautious person in that way.And I'm sorry your interpretation got rejected for those reasons. I hate that. If by "soul" you mean something non-material that exists after death, then no. I don't have any idea whether there's a soul or not.This belief / not belief in soul is grounded in non-empirical introspection. It's not grounded in any empirical investigation. Like I said, things like empirical theories say nothing about the non-empirical, non-material. If I pointed at a woman and told you "that woman steals wallets, be careful," I don't think you would be so dismissive. Does every statement have to cover everyhting in order to be worthy of consideration?Evolution theory is a theory of the empirical world. You should put stock into it for what it's meant for--a description of the empirical world. You should not put stock into it for things it is not meant for--any consideration outside the empirical world.I think this is a pretty straightforward thing. Maybe it would be helpful if you explained why you think evolution theory should cover anything outside of the empirical world.

Well, two things.First, I think these things DO fit well with the things we know about the human mind. They are not contradictory with evolution, psychology, or neuroscience. They can be accounted for that way. If you want to learn more about how, I can send you some information about a famous researcher who has ideas that agree with my own.But I think this is really irrelevant to the point. There are definitely things that we currently CANNOT account for emprically, such as qualia (why does it feel like anything at all to be cold? or scared? or tired?). So your question, a good one, stands nonetheless.My answer calls back to my original post to you. It's all about finding a world view that fits with your own base assumptions (see the questions I posed for you in my first post). People need to resolve their own world view by CHOOSING. There is no necessity, there NEVER will be any necessity, for a belief or non-belief in the non-physical world. IT IS UP TO YOU. COMPLETELY UP TO YOU.It IS necessary, however to resolve your belief in the non-physical with what we know about the physical world. See how Faith struggles to make them fit? She's trying to resolve the two. See how crashfrog takes a minimalist point of view? He's trying to resolve the two. See how Jar allows his non-physical beliefs to be dictated by empiricism? He's trying to resolve the two. Everybody needs to resolve the two.

---

So, to summarize... I would reiterate what I said in my original post. It's up to you to question yourself, to see what things are "basic", what is unquestionable, what is meaningful... and then to choose your beliefs based on that. You can allow your beliefs to be dictated to you by others, you can choose them yourself... just make sure that you listen to YOURSELF, because you can run, but you can't hide from those things. And if you choose AGAINST yourself, ... you're just delaying the inevitable crisis and rejection of your "belief."Sorry if this post isn't very clear. I'm glad my previous words were starting to make some sense to you, and I hope these hold some meaning as well.Thanks for listening / reading.

Exactly. Either way, you are still you. Facts ABOUT you do not define you. Regardless of what you discover about what you are, you still haven't discovered, CREATED, WHO you are.(Boy we seem to be working together more often these days. Just wanted to drop a "thanks" for helping out in other threads.. and a "sorry" for seemingly abandoning you. Sometimes I just get so fed up with people who have an unwillingness to TRY to understand, but are just interested in finding ways to shoot you down and support their own position. That is not conversation. Other times, I just can't find the right words or thoughts.Anyway. Thanks for the support and for sharing ideas. I'm working on responding to RAZD's 'personhood' thread, which is a prereq for moving forward on the science & govt. thread)

Are you saying this based on any study of cognition, or just pulling this out of your ass? Everything I've heard in the study of cognition that is related to this topic contradicts what you say. As far as I've heard, the "I" is dependent on development.The first example that comes to mind is studies of feral children, which RAZD often brings up. I was also put under the impression by people at UCSD (who work as cognitive anthroplogists) that there's good reason to believe that the "I" depends on development within a culture, just as language development has the same dependency."Me" is just as conceptual as anything else out there.

Do you think there are any limits to the constraints that can be placed on us and we still have "free will" ?Would you be willing to say that "free will" and "determinism" are not mutually exclusive?(Note: I'm willing!)