|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Final Straws - why do religious moderates keep the faith?
|
TiggyTiger
Shipmate
# 14819
|
Posted
Love that sentence, 'It does not logically follow that because we occasionally fail to see seagulls, that dragons are therefore real.'
That's like, cosmic man! I'm not sure I understand the logic of it, but there are a hell of a lot of seagulls round here and maybe I fail to see some of them. On the other hand, I've always hoped that dragons were once real.
I feel strangely stoned tonight...and doing a Chancy Gardener.
--------------------
'Each and everybody is hiding, each is concealing the place where his heart beats.'
Daniel Barenboim
Posts: 347 | From: Bath | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Much of the debate that I have seen on this thread seems to hinge on “Why not believe in god?” the answer for me is “Which ONE?” “Why THAT one?” Is the Christian god all that? Or is he just favored by his people out of habit?
I don't understand this. 'The Christian God' is not a description of one kind of god that happens to be chosen by Christians.
Oh but it is. Actually technically it is one kind of god that happens to be chosen by Jews, then Christians, and I hear Muslims as well (in the case of the Big Guy, but not the Little Guy or Holy Spirit).
That you discard other gods, is quite possibly an arbitrary selection based on cultural influence. Had you grown up in India, you probably would be arguing elephant gods with me right now, almost without question, or perhaps you’d be Muslim, or maybe slight chance something else. But the odds would be against Christian.
The problem with gods as we have been discussing here is that they are almighty hard to test claims-wise, so one religions claim is not really objectively better than another, in my opinion, and observation.
quote:
'The Christian God' is in essence one specific feature of scientific reality - the first cause - that by tradition has historically been referred to as God. That the same tradition often smothers the simple reality with uncritically evaluated interpretations of first or second hand experience is problematic. But we as individuals are free to ignore all that if we choose.
Really? That’s interesting, because I hear Sikhs make much similar claims for their god. One can interpret their god as the Universe itself! As such, perhaps their gods claim is superior to yours? Maybe not. I really don’t know. There is no “scientific reality” of gods. It’s mixing apples and ghosts.
quote:
I happen to think that on balance there's still value and potential within the institutions of Christianity. Some time in the future I might come to a different conclusion, but the reality will remain. All I think authentic Christianity ever tries to do is incorporate this feature of ultimate reality, by definition beyond anything in our everyday reality, in a world view that makes sense of human experience. There's no choice of god involved, just lots of questions and a diversity of preferences about which story or theory works best.
Are you positing that all the other gods are your god? A kind of Divine Co-op? Otherwise there is choice of gods, why else would there be so many religions?
There may be some value in the institutions of Christianity. There is also damaging ideas in some institutions of Christianity, if not many.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
technically ['The Christian God'] is one kind of god that happens to be chosen by Jews, then Christians, and I hear Muslims as well (in the case of the Big Guy, but not the Little Guy or Holy Spirit).
No, in essence all three religions will hold that there can be only one God. They will reject the notion of gods because it is not philosophically tenable to posit more than one of what they mean by God/Allah.
Serious talk of gods is only possible if you mean an arbitrary selection based on cultural influence. That is not what thinking Christians (or Jews or Muslims) mean. It is the traditions and mythology surrounding the reality of God/Allah that varies. That this dominates the appearance of the religions and their expression by non-/anti-intellectual adherents will have parallels that are apparent across political parties and secular groups. It's how people are.
quote:
There may be some value in the institutions of Christianity. There is also damaging ideas in some institutions of Christianity, if not many.
Yes. Just like any other human institution. The only alternative I can see to engaging with at least one is individualism. Which has its attractions, but at the cost of limiting our scope for creativity.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I hope you take this the way I mean it, which is to say in a serious attempt to understand.
Your entire first half of your response made absolutely no sense to me at all. I literally have no idea what you were trying to say.
Can you unpack it a bit?
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyinOxford
Apprentice
# 12657
|
Posted
on the business of discarding gods, does this help -- at least as a story?
Once people thought there were lots of gods, sometimes different ones associated with different nations. There are plenty of traces of this sort of thinking in various parts of the Hebrew bible. So: big idea is there are lots of gods -- and the picture to go with it is, say, Mount Olympus: a lot of gods in a single space like people in a big room. Then the big insight comes: there aren't lots of gods, there is only One God -- monotheism. Now the big problem is what's the picture to go with is: just one person in a room? The real break with various fundamentalist views is to see that this can't be right either: there isn't 'one god', like there is one Mount Everest (but that's not a good example) -- there is just God.
pax
Tony
--------------------
Tony
Posts: 35 | From: oxford | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
Not sure where to start. You were talking about gods as imaginary entities unconnected to scientific reality, their attributes defined by culture and perhaps unconscious personal preference. I'm suggesting that God as understood in the Christian tradition is an essentially different concept.
God (as opposed to a god) as a label refers to the first cause of our existence - an undeniable reality. When talking about God we are not (if we want to make rational sense) free to choose the attributes we or our culture happens to prefer. We have to look to reality for our basic information, and to philosophy, metaphysics, to make sense of it.
Of course the history of Christianity is littered with people who had other ideas. The politics of the time meant some of these attempts have stuck, for example the Greek/Roman idea of God incarnating as Jesus. But alongside such artificial attachments has always been the insistence that Christianity is about what is true, and that is its saving grace. It means that however loudly the traditionalists and the fundamentalists shout about the centrality of their beliefs and practices, they cannot dismiss what is real without acknowledging they are only worshipping a god, an idol of their own making.
I totally agree that listening to many Christians, there's sometimes little indication of any commitment to verifiable reality. But attempt to separate that cultural religion from God as, say creator and sustainer of the universe, and you get laughed out of court. That's only because underneath all the beliefism and sacramentalism (that I imagine closely parallel god worship in other cultures) Christianity is at core committed to the real God.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
'The Christian God' is in essence one specific feature of scientific reality - the first cause - that by tradition has historically been referred to as God. That the same tradition often smothers the simple reality with uncritically evaluated interpretations of first or second hand experience is problematic.
The problem is that your description doesn't fit Christianity as it is commonly understood and practiced by most real-world Christians. If the average believer saw God as simply a first cause, unsmothered with interpretations of first or second hand experience, we might be having a very different conversation.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
The problem is that your description doesn't fit Christianity as it is commonly understood and practiced by most real-world Christians.
Yeah. I ought to pack up and go home. Thing is, who else is interested in this stuff?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Oh but it is. Actually technically it is one kind of god that happens to be chosen by Jews, then Christians, and I hear Muslims as well (in the case of the Big Guy, but not the Little Guy or Holy Spirit).
That you discard other gods, is quite possibly an arbitrary selection based on cultural influence. Had you grown up in India, you probably would be arguing elephant gods with me right now, almost without question, or perhaps you’d be Muslim, or maybe slight chance something else. But the odds would be against Christian.
I think the problem is that you are treating "the Christian God" as a single indivisible claim and "the Hindu God" as a separate single indivisible claim.
In reality "the traditional Christian God exists" encompasses a whole series of claims, such as:
- There exists some kind of higher spiritual power,
- who / which is the "focus of unity" that Dafyd was talking about earlier,
- who / which is the First Cause and Unmoved Mover,
- who / which is omni-all sorts of stuff,
- who is personal,
- who is Trinitarian,
- who became Incarnate,
- (insert remainder of Nicene Creed here)
Now point (1) is believed by the overwhelming majority of people, even in supposedly secular Europe. Points (2) - (4) are very common and held by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Taoism (when applied to the Tao), some African religions, all Ancient Greek schools of philosophy with the exception of Epicureanism, and probably many others that I don't know of.
Further down the list you are, yes, getting into flakier territory, but that doesn't undermine the universality of at least some of the claims made for the Christian God.
(ETA: pretentiousness.)
[ 30. June 2009, 18:10: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Again, just because an idea is "overwhelming majority" popular does not mean that the idea is TRUE. Many ideas have fallen out of vogue over the centuries. Some ideas in the bible in fact. I would not propose to hold on to them because they were popular.
I also do not see complexity of argument as equal to veracity of argument.
As Scot pointed out, "your description doesn't fit Christianity as it is commonly understood and practiced by most real-world Christians". Much of Christianity, starts at #4, in the "flakier territory". In my observation.
You will probably say that I am jaded, or cynical, and you may be right, but I honestly see much of this debate as a form of obfuscation that has evolved as part of religion. Whenever I see discussions such as this, one can make a simple comment and immediately have people come in with concepts like "focus of unity" and "First Cause". Now granted, people are complex, and they come up with some pretty apparently novel and complex ideas, and maybe even some of the complexity MAY equal a good argument, but to be utterly frank, some of these seem to be rationalizing the irrational. Why not declare it a mystery, all of it, and have done with it rather than try to justify claims that are clearly unjustifiable?
Virgins don't have births. There I've said it. <gasp>
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
In the absence of a compelling reason to do otherwise, I am obliged to treat religious questions in a manner consistent with how I try to treat any other question. I remain open to reasons why I might treat religion differently, but I lack the sort of personal experience cited by so many of the moderate Christians on this thread.
OK, you don't have that personal experience, but loads of other people do. How is that treated by scientific rationalists?
I can't speak for scientific rationalists as a class, but I am concerned with other people's truth claims, not their personal experiences. If someone claims that something is true, I would look at whatever evidence is available to support or dismiss the claim. I wouldn't necessarily discount evidence because it is uncorroborated personal experience, but I would weigh such a report against what we know of how the world works.
Fair enough, if you're just not interested. But it seems to me that the system you're dealing with should be able to account for religious experience, one way or another.
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
1. Human experience seems fairly unreliable. There are spiritualists, druids, Islamists, Christian Fundies etc who all claim to have had experiences that are convincing. Do I believe them all?
Their specific truth claims? No. That they had experiences? Yes. Some investigation into the nature of these experiences seems warranted to me.
quote:
2. If I went to a Mosque and experienced more than I have in church - would that mean that Islam is right?
To my way of thinking, no. It would mean that Islam suits you better than Christianity.
quote:
3. I know quite a few people who had very powerful experiences within the Christian faith who now would claim to be atheists. How do I know those who presently claim to have had powerful experiences won't end up coming to similar conclusions.
You don't. But in my experience most people who have had intense spiritual experiences find them meaningful, one way or another, and don't later decide they were baloney.
quote:
4. I am totally convinced that as homo sapiens we are very prone to delusional thinking - why should I believe that the area of spiritual experiences isn't prone to this weakness.
You shouldn't. But you carry the burden of proving that I or anyone else who has had a profound spiritual experience is delusional. Do you think people who have had spiritual experiences are more delusional that people who put their faith in science?
quote:
I normally find myself in agreement with much of what you say but I don't understand why you, or others, find the spiritual experiences so trustworthy.
Guess you had to be there. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
More seriously, I find the ones I've had trustworthy because they have born sweet fruit in my life, because what I felt like I should take from them fit with things that I already knew to be right and good, and because I have ultimately become more psychologically healthy as a result of trusting where these things lead, not less.
quote:
Finally if God can seemingly give other Christians (almost) experience on demand, why if he/she if interested in me can't God give me anything at all to cling on to. After all it seems to be the anchor for many people's faith.
What makes you think these experiences take place on demand? This certainly wasn't the case for me. But I don't have an answer for your question. I asked the same question when I quit religion.
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Virgins don't have births. There I've said it. <gasp>
No, no gasp. That virgins don't give birth is so widely accepted among moderate and liberal Christians that non-belief in the virgin birth wasn't even mentioned in the OP.
[ 30. June 2009, 23:46: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Much of Christianity, starts at #4, in the "flakier territory". In my observation.
And in mine. But I don't feel bound by anyone else's religion simply by identifying with some of it. I see the little bits of Church I'm involved with as opportunities to contribute, not any system or imposition to which I must conform.
That makes it hard to understand objections to Christianity in general. The essence, what Jesus was about, seems real and open-ended. I guess I've found a niche that suits me.
[ 01. July 2009, 00:40: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Crossposted
RuthW.
I give a fairly complete treatment of the topic and you address the throw away punchline?
I think your assertion that moderate Christians do not believe in the Virgin Birth is overstated, for the record. Liberals, yes. Moderates, no. The creeds, which have certainly been liberally used as a litmus test of Christianity in more places than this, assert it. Most churches assert it. It certainly doesn't seem to be lacking in Sunday School anywhere, especially around X-mas.
It IMO is one more demonstration of the OP. If one doesn't believe in Virgin Births, etc. why stay? At what point does one's deviations from such as the creeds become a punchline at the end of a post convince one to leave?
[ 01. July 2009, 00:37: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
OK, you don't have that personal experience, but loads of other people do. How is that treated by scientific rationalists? quote:
I can't speak for scientific rationalists as a class, but I am concerned with other people's truth claims, not their personal experiences. If someone claims that something is true, I would look at whatever evidence is available to support or dismiss the claim. I wouldn't necessarily discount evidence because it is uncorroborated personal experience, but I would weigh such a report against what we know of how the world works.
Fair enough, if you're just not interested. But it seems to me that the system you're dealing with should be able to account for religious experience, one way or another.
I didn't say I wasn't interested. Not sure where you got that, but maybe I misunderstood your original question. I thought you were asking how I would deal with the content of a personal experience that I haven't had myself. My answer is simply that I would evaluate those reports based on the reliability of the witness and how consistent the data is with better documented aspects of the world. If you were asking how I deal with the fact that people have religious experiences at all, I would point back to the earlier discussions about neuroscience, emotion, and pattern-seeking.
Here's a hypothetical example to (hopefully) clarify the distinction I'm trying to make.
If you told me that you were meditating and experienced a bright light and an ethereal voice telling you that a life well lived must be based on love, I would evaluate the claim that love is important in light of what I know of the world. This claim doesn't contradict anything I know about life or the universe, and it is consistent with my own less dramatic experiences.
If you told me that you were meditating and experienced a bright light and an ethereal voice telling you that a virgin gave birth to the son of God, I would evaluate the claim the same way. The assertion that a virgin gave birth is strongly contradicted by what I know to be true about the world, so I would consider it less likely that your vision contained truth. I would therefore tend to be skeptical about the son of God part, too.
In either case, whether the content of the vision seemed true or not, I would consider it most likely that the vision was the result of an altered state of consciousness resulting from deep meditation.
[ 01. July 2009, 02:14: Message edited by: Scot ]
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Crossposted
It IMO is one more demonstration of the OP. If one doesn't believe in Virgin Births, etc. why stay?
Because some people understand things metaphorically, not literally, and they have more meaning that way ( not less as some literalists assume).
quote:
At what point does one's deviations from such as the creeds become a punchline at the end of a post convince one to leave?
When you lose your sense of humour?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
It seems to me me that this thread has drifted so far from the OP as to become a really bizarre non sequitur--something like "how can moderates demand that everyone else believe the same things they believe, when they don't believe the Bible is absolutely authoritative?"
I don't know if I'm a moderate or what (it's not a word I would use to describe myself). I'm a Christian because of my personal experience, but I'm certainly not saying that anyone else should trust my experience. In fact, I'll say that more emphatically: Don't trust my experience, trust your own--but allow yourself to be open to experience, don't preempt experience with logic. Don't assume you know what the experience will be before you have it.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
2. If I went to a Mosque and experienced more than I have in church - would that mean that Islam is right?
To my way of thinking, no. It would mean that Islam suits you better than Christianity.
I see what you're saying here, but is it all just a matter of personal preference, like flavours of ice cream?
For example, I'm presuming that you, as a Christian, reject the notion that the Qur'an was dictated by an angel to the Prophet and is therefore divine and inerrant. If you reject this based on your experience, and they reject Christianity's claims based on their experience, then all we seem to have established is that you disagree, and you can't both be right.
It seems to me that if you take objective truth claims out of religion, you don't have much left.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
It seems to me that if you take objective truth claims out of religion, you don't have much left.
Religion isn't about objective truth claims. How do we know this? Because they all claim the truth (or at least historically - some religions are finally waking up to the 21st C).
Its about human responses to the divine.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I'm a Christian because of my personal experience, but I'm certainly not saying that anyone else should trust my experience. In fact, I'll say that more emphatically: Don't trust my experience, trust your own--but allow yourself to be open to experience, don't preempt experience with logic.
Not pre-empting experience sounds reasonable, but using experience alone, whether our own or someone else's, as an indicator of what is real or true seems a very bad idea. Experience is only trustworthy as a question-generating mechanism. Reason (logic) applied to a diversity of experience, ours, other people's, that written up in science journals, is the only way to determine if subjective assessments of any particular experience are consistent with how the universe is. If it's not, there's a strong possibility that experience was/is misleading.
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
[If Christians] reject the notion that the Qur'an was dictated by an angel to the Prophet and is therefore divine and inerrant ... based on [their] experience, and [Muslims] reject Christianity's claims based on their experience, then all we seem to have established is that [they] disagree, and [they] can't both be right.
This illustrates the impossibility of establishing truth on the basis of (subjective) experience. I reject the claim that the Qur'an is divine and inerrant on the basis of lack of credible evidence, as I do similar claims for the Bible or any other religion's sacred texts. I don't need to compare them with some other unverifiable set of claims of my own.
quote:
It seems to me that if you take objective truth claims out of religion, you don't have much left.
What you would have left is what is worth saving. The values that a religion stands for would no longer be obscured. You might have a religion that could become a genuinely radical and cohesive force for good. What exactly would be lost?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
I didn't say I wasn't interested. Not sure where you got that, but maybe I misunderstood your original question.
Sorry, my misreading -- I got that you weren't interested in this question based on your statement about what you are actually interested in. And yes, the hypothetical makes your position much clearer for me, thanks.
I'd certainly concede that your position is more rational than mine. At this point it seems to me that I simply don't place as high a premium on reason as you do, for a couple of reasons, in large part because intensive study of 18th-century literature, philosophy and history, which is to say a lot of Enlightenment thinking, left me rather dubious about rationalism, its motivations and its aims.
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
If you told me that you were meditating and experienced a bright light and an ethereal voice telling you that a life well lived must be based on love, I would evaluate the claim that love is important in light of what I know of the world. This claim doesn't contradict anything I know about life or the universe, and it is consistent with my own less dramatic experiences.
If you told me that you were meditating and experienced a bright light and an ethereal voice telling you that a virgin gave birth to the son of God, I would evaluate the claim the same way. The assertion that a virgin gave birth is strongly contradicted by what I know to be true about the world, so I would consider it less likely that your vision contained truth. I would therefore tend to be skeptical about the son of God part, too.
This makes total sense to me, actually. I think the thing about private revelation that makes it so difficult is that it is just that: private. I don't think my spiritual experiences can underwrite any faith but my own, and I wouldn't make truth claims based on them -- just claims about faith, which aren't the same thing.
Mad Geo: Sorry you didn't like it, but the last line in your post is the only thing I had a reaction to. I sincerely doubt that there are lots moderate Christians who believe in the virgin birth; I only know one. You'd have to trot out some hard data to change my mind on that one.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
I see what you're saying here, but is it all just a matter of personal preference, like flavours of ice cream?
Well, no, I think it's a bit more serious than preferring one flavor of ice cream. More like finding a form of exercise you can actually do when for whatever reason you can't do the exercises most of the people around you do.
quote:
For example, I'm presuming that you, as a Christian, reject the notion that the Qur'an was dictated by an angel to the Prophet and is therefore divine.
No, I'm pretty sure that the Qur'an is probably divine. Why G-d needed to reveal herself in that particular way in that particular place and time is the real question; I have my guesses, but I'm pretty sure I'm not capable of understanding everything about G-d.
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Finally if God can seemingly give other Christians (almost) experience on demand, why if he/she if interested in me can't God give me anything at all to cling on to. After all it seems to be the anchor for many people's faith.
Repeating Ruth again: what makes you think these experiences take place on demand?
I don't know the answer, but it's possible that the only kind of experience that you would accept would have to be so dramatic that it would disturb other people too much and completely throw them off the path. It's also possible that at this point in your spiritual journey you need to take a break from Christianity or even from G-d; I didn't believe in G-d at all until I was 23 and certain things happened that convinced me that G-d was the simplest explanation.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
I see what you're saying here, but is it all just a matter of personal preference, like flavours of ice cream?
Well, no, I think it's a bit more serious than preferring one flavor of ice cream. More like finding a form of exercise you can actually do when for whatever reason you can't do the exercises most of the people around you do.
Exactly. Not everyone needs to be or can be a runner, but we all need exercise. The point is to walk a spiritual path; to my way of thinking it really doesn't matter which one you pick, as long as it's not coercive and crazy-making.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay: quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Finally if God can seemingly give other Christians (almost) experience on demand, why if he/she if interested in me can't God give me anything at all to cling on to. After all it seems to be the anchor for many people's faith.
Repeating Ruth again: what makes you think these experiences take place on demand?
I don't know the answer, but it's possible that the only kind of experience that you would accept would have to be so dramatic that it would disturb other people too much and completely throw them off the path.
The other thing I'd add about spiritual experiences is that they are conditioned by our personal and cultural circumstances. The Virgin appears to Catholics, for instance. When I quit Christianity, one of the things I thought was that if there was a God, that God could damn well give me a road-to-Damascus experience if I was supposed to believe in God. Nine years later, I got as close to such an experience as I could handle.
I realize that saying that we get the experiences we expect to have sounds pretty circular, but I think the details -- whether one sees or hears the Virgin, a bright light, a loved one, angels, whatever -- are really not the point. The point is that people have transcendent experiences that to me are not satisfactorily explained by science. Maybe they will be someday; they won't be less meaningful. And they will probably still not be satisfactorily interpreted by science; science can tell us how something happens but can't assign meaning to it.
My transcendent experiences have taken place in a Christian context, so for that and other more prosaic reasons I'm sticking with Christianity.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I'm a Christian because of my personal experience, but I'm certainly not saying that anyone else should trust my experience. In fact, I'll say that more emphatically: Don't trust my experience, trust your own--but allow yourself to be open to experience, don't preempt experience with logic.
Not pre-empting experience sounds reasonable, but using experience alone, whether our own or someone else's, as an indicator of what is real or true seems a very bad idea. Experience is only trustworthy as a question-generating mechanism. Reason (logic) applied to a diversity of experience, ours, other people's, that written up in science journals, is the only way to determine if subjective assessments of any particular experience are consistent with how the universe is. If it's not, there's a strong possibility that experience was/is misleading.
For science, sure--but I don't believe there is any analogy between religion and science. People do not (if they are wise) accumulate spiritual data so they can devise an accurate theory about the nature of God. Faith and belief are not synonyms--the former is an attitude and act, the latter is intellectual assent to some particular set of propositions.
Beliefs may or may not be an aid to faith (when they are, it is probably only to the extent that they are malleable, subject to modification by experience). Experiences are not misleading--our interpretations of experiences often are. If I misinterpret an experience and wander off the path, my next experience (of stubbing my toe on a metaphorical rock, say) is corrective.
I'm not advocating an individualistic, purely subjective approach to experience--I can trust others' experience to the extent I trust them and can participate imaginatively in their experience. But my experience of your account of your experience is still my experience, not yours. And I'm not talking just about voices and visions--it can be so much more mundane than that.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Luigi:
Finally if God can seemingly give other Christians (almost) experience on demand, why if he/she if interested in me can't God give me anything at all to cling on to. After all it seems to be the anchor for many people's faith.
Repeating Ruth again: what makes you think these experiences take place on demand?
I don't know the answer, but it's possible that the only kind of experience that you would accept would have to be so dramatic that it would disturb other people too much and completely throw them off the path. It's also possible that at this point in your spiritual journey you need to take a break from Christianity or even from G-d; I didn't believe in G-d at all until I was 23 and certain things happened that convinced me that G-d was the simplest explanation.
I do find the line that it must be my fault line a little insulting. I am often told that people have had experiences that are so strong / distinctive that the experience has convinced the person that God is there. That sort of experience would do me fine. Apparently these other people have had experiences that haven't 'disturbed' other people. Frankly this line of reasoning is both patronising and presumptious.
Ruth - my point wasn't that just people who have spiritual experiences are delusional there is plenty of evidence that we all are very prone to delusional thinking. From what I have read and my experience of life, I have come to the conclusion that when people argue from experience it could be true, but it certinaly might not. I don't see why it is up to me to disprove it. Why? Unusual experiences could easily be down to some of the short cuts our brains take that mean our perceptions are often fooled.
So it is not that I distrust the person, it is more that I think of them as being every bit as human as I am.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
I don't know the answer, but it's possible that the only kind of experience that you would accept would have to be so dramatic that it would disturb other people too much and completely throw them off the path. It's also possible that at this point in your spiritual journey you need to take a break from Christianity or even from G-d; I didn't believe in G-d at all until I was 23 and certain things happened that convinced me that G-d was the simplest explanation.
I do find the line that it must be my fault line a little insulting.
I didn't say that it must be your fault; I suggested one possibility, which isn't even that it's your fault so much as the fault of the people around you.
quote:
I am often told that people have had experiences that are so strong / distinctive that the experience has convinced the person that God is there. That sort of experience would do me fine. Apparently these other people have had experiences that haven't 'disturbed' other people. Frankly this line of reasoning is both patronising and presumptious.
Look, I'm not trying to define your experience or tell you why exactly G-d doesn't give you these sorts of experiences when he does give them to others.
But I do think there's a neurological component. And I don't think many people would argue with the idea that for all the similarities, different people's brains are wired slightly differently (Aspergers, the fact that two people can have the same experience and one will develop PTSD and one won't, etc.) And there's a cultural component - I think I posted earlier on this thread about how a friend and I had very similar experiences of synchronicity which he attributed to the Holy Spirit working and I didn't. And again, I'm not saying that it's necessarily the case, but suggesting the possibility that given your particular situation, it might not be possible for G-d to give you that kind of experience without doing something really dramatic that would disturb the people around you.
And the reason I'm suggesting that as a possibility is because that was my experience. There was a thread a while back in which The Atheist insisted that it would be really simple for G-d to speak to him and the fact that he didn't demonstrated Her nonexistence.
Well, my mother had a lifelong struggle with having faith of any kind, and eventually G-d did speak to her in a Road-to-Damascus collapsing you kind of way. And shortly thereafter she died. Which, together with a whole bunch of other shit, was enough to convince me that G-d exists in the way that gravity exists.
But it wasn't the kind of experience that affected only me. It affected a whole bunch of other people who were unnerved enough that they needed to talk about what had happened a lot of the time (and some of them lost the plot). I keep running into people who've heard something about it (although right now I'm struggling to understand how the poor black underclass of Delaware managed to hear about it since I wouldn't have thought they talked to any of the people involved).
I remember thinking that the whole 'G-d's ways are mysterious' thing was a cop-out back when I was a militant agnostic (I had a button that read "I don't know and you don't either"). But, hell, G-d's ways are mysterious. I hope to comprehend them but I'm not sure I will.
quote:
Ruth - my point wasn't that just people who have spiritual experiences are delusional there is plenty of evidence that we all are very prone to delusional thinking. From what I have read and my experience of life, I have come to the conclusion that when people argue from experience it could be true, but it certinaly might not. I don't see why it is up to me to disprove it. Why? Unusual experiences could easily be down to some of the short cuts our brains take that mean our perceptions are often fooled.
So it is not that I distrust the person, it is more that I think of them as being every bit as human as I am.
Not to speak for Ruth here, but frankly I'm tired of all the scientific rationalists demanding proof in a form they understand and will take. I can't prove my belief, you can't prove your disbelief, so could we at least call it a draw and not try to discount the very real experiences others have?
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Proof! I DEMAND PROOF!! Oh, no, wait... No, I just won't necessarily agree with you without corroborating evidence.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Proof! I DEMAND PROOF!!
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Well at least you're not looking for wisdom or a miraculous sign.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I don't believe there is any analogy between religion and science.
Science and religion certainly work differently. Science sets out to describe what can be repeatably measured, religion to provide plausible explanations of human experience. But both (if followed with integrity) are essentially concerned with how things really are. I don't see 'the spiritual' as some kind of alternative reality to which the laws of nature don't apply. It's more the non-repeating patterns in our experience to which we happen to find our mind has attached meaning.
The question is how we assign value to that meaning. Do we prioritise the spiritual interpretation over a sceptical perspective when determining how to spend our time, for example.
It seems mostly a matter of choice, although I guess temperament comes into it. Do we assume an experience that looks/feels like (say) a powerful reassuring presence is from what we mean by God, entirely different in kind to any natural sensory experience? Or do we trust the knowledge that our mind is an electro/chemical machine of enormous complexity, with the capacity to generate dreams and the like as vivid as any actual experience of reality. If the latter, I think we'll conclude (perhaps reluctantly) that this is no evidence for any distinct 'spiritual reality'.
And as always our theological foundation is going to make a difference. If by God we mean some undefined 'out there' higher power, it may well make sense to assume spiritual experiences are God-related. But all this does is reinforce one ungrounded, speculative theory with another. If on the other hand by God we mean something like first cause of the universe, and our concern is to base our understanding on what is real and true, spiritual experiences simply add to our store of memories to appreciate, alongside those of (say) beauty acquired through regular sensory perception.
[ 02. July 2009, 13:26: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Proof! I DEMAND PROOF!! Oh, no, wait... No, I just won't necessarily agree with you without corroborating evidence.
Hey, it's only recently that I've gotten most people to stop telling me what I think and how I feel - because, you know, while temperature may be an objective measurable state feeling cold is not and while you may be completely comfortable at that temperature I really am freezing.
So you've probably got a while before I start insisting that your experience must necessarily be exactly like mine and that the things that convince me must also convince you.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Proof! I DEMAND PROOF!!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Oh, no, wait... No, I just won't necessarily agree with you without corroborating evidence.
No one's asking you to, or at least I'm not. The original question asked why we continue to believe; it didn't ask us to underwrite anyone else's faith. We've explained why we believe, and it turns out that the basis of our belief is something you don't accept. Which is fine.
It works both ways, too. You have elevated logic and reason far beyond a level I feel comfortable with, asking them to do something I don't think they can do: underwrite faith. Logic and reason are not for me the ultimate test of truth.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Oh, no, wait... No, I just won't necessarily agree with you without corroborating evidence.
Given that:
A) Argument from experience is out due to some pseudoscientific notion of unreliability
B) All forms of corroborating evidence are based on someone’s experience (even if he or she is wearing the postmodern vestments of a lab coat)
C) It necasarly follows that no corroborating evidence can ever be obtained for anything let alone God.
Thus it follows that the sum of your argument striped of its scientific window dressing is:
You say you have experienced something that I have not. I don’t believe you if I can’t find it, it can’t be there ner ner ner ner ner and so forth.
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Again, just because an idea is "overwhelming majority" popular does not mean that the idea is TRUE.
Of course. But if the overwhelming majority claim that some kind of spiritual power exists, then at the very least the burden of proof falls on those who doubt this claim to show why it is false or unfounded. quote:
I also do not see complexity of argument as equal to veracity of argument.
As Scot pointed out, "your description doesn't fit Christianity as it is commonly understood and practiced by most real-world Christians". Much of Christianity, starts at #4, in the "flakier territory". In my observation.
So what?
If you mean that most Christians have confused and unsophisticated views, then I imagine the same is true of most atheists.
For example: a relatively common theme on the Ship is "Can atheism provide a sound basis for morality?" The overwhelming majority of atheists would say that it can. However, I doubt that many of them would be able to say how that basis works in a way that would satisfy a philosophy lecturer, or would quote Baron d'Holbach or Bertrand Russell at you.
Is that a reason for rejecting atheism? quote:
You will probably say that I am jaded, or cynical, and you may be right, but I honestly see much of this debate as a form of obfuscation that has evolved as part of religion. Whenever I see discussions such as this, one can make a simple comment and immediately have people come in with concepts like "focus of unity" and "First Cause". Now granted, people are complex, and they come up with some pretty apparently novel and complex ideas, and maybe even some of the complexity MAY equal a good argument, but to be utterly frank, some of these seem to be rationalizing the irrational. Why not declare it a mystery, all of it, and have done with it rather than try to justify claims that are clearly unjustifiable?
I think that is kind of the point.
You will probably see this as more obfuscation, but as far as I understand Dafyd's argument, it is that scientific rationalism makes a whole series of unacknowledged faith claims, and it is far better to admit them openly and call it "God" than to pretend they're not there and that everything is explained.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Ruth, I think you are mischaracterizing my position (although not nearly so grossly as Chill has done) while subtly revising your own.
A couple of posts back I explained that I wouldn't necessarily discount a personal experience reported by a respected person, so long as it wasn't nonsensical. You said:
quote:
I don't think my spiritual experiences can underwrite any faith but my own, and I wouldn't make truth claims based on them -- just claims about faith, which aren't the same thing.
Now, while asserting that reason cannot underwrite faith, you say that:
quote:
Logic and reason are not for me the ultimate test of truth.
It certainly looks to me as if you are suggesting that you canmake claims about truth based on faith and, by extension, your spiritual experiences.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I don't believe there is any analogy between religion and science.
Science and religion certainly work differently. Science sets out to describe what can be repeatably measured, religion to provide plausible explanations of human experience.
I don't think religion is particularly about providing explanations--it's about guiding actions. The core scientific question is "How do things work?" The core religious question is "How shall I live?" We do tend to construct explanations: "You should live like this because God is thus and such and says blah blah blah..." but this is secondary, and the correctness of the explanations is not critical, as it is in science. The map is not the territory--I don't need to know exactly where all the rocks are as long as I have a path that goes between them.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I don't believe there is any analogy between religion and science.
Science and religion certainly work differently. Science sets out to describe what can be repeatably measured, religion to provide plausible explanations of human experience.
I don't think religion is particularly about providing explanations--it's about guiding actions. The core scientific question is "How do things work?" The core religious question is "How shall I live?"
While there's a lot in what you say, I think you are still too limited in your view here. Yes, "How shall I live" may be a central aspect of religion. But sometimes it is a very different enterprise than that. It may be as simple as feeling the need to say "Thank you" for the bounty that has been poured out on you. It need not be a question at all.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Ruth, I think you are mischaracterizing my position (although not nearly so grossly as Chill has done) while subtly revising your own.
I haven't discussed these things in quite this way in a long time, and I probably don't have a firm and hard position. I certainly didn't intend to mischaracterize your position, though I'm sure it's possible that I did.
quote:
A couple of posts back I explained that I wouldn't necessarily discount a personal experience reported by a respected person, so long as it wasn't nonsensical. You said:
quote:
I don't think my spiritual experiences can underwrite any faith but my own, and I wouldn't make truth claims based on them -- just claims about faith, which aren't the same thing.
Now, while asserting that reason cannot underwrite faith, you say that:
quote:
Logic and reason are not for me the ultimate test of truth.
It certainly looks to me as if you are suggesting that you canmake claims about truth based on faith and, by extension, your spiritual experiences.
Sorry, I wasn't consistent in my use of the word "truth." When I said "truth claims," I probably should have said claims about objectively held facts, and when I said "truth" in that last post, it probably would have been more clear if I'd said "Truth" (imagine accompanying choirs of angels, maybe?).
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
if the overwhelming majority claim that some kind of spiritual power exists, then at the very least the burden of proof falls on those who doubt this claim to show why it is false or unfounded.
Only if we feel the need to justify a minority position. There is no evidence that any experience is caused by a 'higher spiritual power'. If the actual evidential value of a claim is zero, it doesn't matter how many people make it. It should still be disregarded in any rational decision making process.
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I don't think religion is particularly about providing explanations--it's about guiding actions.
Providing an explanation that makes sense, in order to achieve a coherent world view. Which we then use to guide our actions. Yes, if a religion provides a good enough life map without much rational consideration of how it's been produced, it's OK as far as it goes. But it may not continue to work if one or more life variables change.
[ 02. July 2009, 20:39: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Only if we feel the need to justify a minority position. There is no evidence that any experience is caused by a 'higher spiritual power'. If the actual evidential value of a claim is zero, it doesn't matter how many people make it. It should still be disregarded in any rational decision making process.
If 99% of people tell me "There is an elephant in Wenceslas Square", would it be more rational to believe or disbelieve them?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
When I said "truth claims," I probably should have said claims about objectively held facts, and when I said "truth" in that last post, it probably would have been more clear if I'd said "Truth" (imagine accompanying choirs of angels, maybe?).
Ha! There's probably a discussion to be had about what is truth (or Truth), and whether there's any point to faith independent of truth (the ordinary kind, without angelic choirs), but I understand what you mean.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If 99% of people tell me "There is an elephant in Wenceslas Square", would it be more rational to believe or disbelieve them?
We know elephants exist. Wencelas Square sounds like plenty of known geographical locations. A 'higher spiritual power' is an entirely imaginary phenomenon, a generic explanation for otherwise hard to explain experiences. That so many people claim belief in such a thing suggests a propensity of human minds to invent it, perhaps for good evolutionary reasons, not that the belief reflects any non-subjective reality.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
Dave
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
if the actual evidential value of a claim is zero, it doesn't matter how many people make it. It should still be disregarded in any rational decision making process.
If this claim you are making is true then I assume you can provide it with some evidential value. Otherwise by the very logic of this apparently abstract and un-provable claim it must be dismissed from any rational decision making.
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
If this claim you are making is true then I assume you can provide it with some evidential value.
I made no claim, only stated a fact. Here's another one. You can assume whatever you like. Doesn't make for an interesting discussion, though.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Ha! There's probably a discussion to be had about what is truth (or Truth),
Yeah, lets talk about "Truth". Whose definition should we use?
Rationality and Reason have their limits. The Enlightenment thought they would be the end all and be all, but philosophy has moved on from there.
I like this quote from a Sparknotes summary of Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" in 1781:
"In effect, Kant tells us that reality is a joint creation of external reality and the human mind and that it is only regarding the latter that we can acquire any certain knowledge. Kant challenges the assumption that the mind is a blank slate or a neutral receptor of stimuli from the surrounding world. The mind does not simply receive information, according to Kant; it also gives that information shape. Knowledge, then, is not something that exists in the outside world and is then poured into an open mind like milk into a cup. Rather, knowledge is something created by the mind by filtering sensations through our various mental faculties. Because these faculties determine the shape that all knowledge takes, we can only grasp what knowledge, and hence truth, is in its most general form if we grasp how these faculties inform our experience. "
Or maybe this is too off topic
Reminds me of Pilate asking Jesus "What is truth"?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
A 'higher spiritual power' is an entirely imaginary phenomenon, a generic explanation for otherwise hard to explain experiences.
It occurs to me that I, as someone who claims that we will all live an eternal life after death, have a distinct advantage over you if you claim that when you die, that's the end. If I am right, then I will eventually have the opportunity to track you down to say "Ha - told you so!" However, if you are right, then you will never have such an opportunity.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
I meant "you" in general, not you in particular, Dave - sorry. I realize that you are very careful about making any claims. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I don't believe there is any analogy between religion and science.
Science and religion certainly work differently. Science sets out to describe what can be repeatably measured, religion to provide plausible explanations of human experience.
I don't think religion is particularly about providing explanations--it's about guiding actions. The core scientific question is "How do things work?" The core religious question is "How shall I live?"
While there's a lot in what you say, I think you are still too limited in your view here. Yes, "How shall I live" may be a central aspect of religion. But sometimes it is a very different enterprise than that. It may be as simple as feeling the need to say "Thank you" for the bounty that has been poured out on you. It need not be a question at all.
--Tom Clune
Oh, I certainly agree. That impulse to gratitude, or to overwhelming love, is like getting the answer without having to ask the question at all--as are most really profound spiritual experiences, ISTM. Systematic inquiry is not what it's about.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
... 'The Christian God' is not a description of one kind of god that happens to be chosen by Christians. ...
Well, Dave, sadly, I don't think that's the way many Nonchristians see it.
One of the problems with so many questionable proselytyzers around is that they do, often, reduce 'God' to some sort of snake oil, which, somehow, they claim to be able to use for various purposes. Distortion and blasphemy.
This 'I believe in God'; 'I don't'; 'Prove God exists'; 'Prove he doesn't' is IMO infantile.
When Jesus - the one who started the Christian Church - was around he didn't have to 'prove' anything like this. Atheism was rare in the Ancient World. Jews and Samaritans, like Muslims, believed in substantially the same God Christians do, what Jesus brought was the reality behind that belief. He went beyond temple sacrifices and 'buying' God's Grace. Things happened.
Buddha preceded Jesus by 500 years. You could make a case for Buddha being very like Jesus, but in an Ancient Indian context, without the Jewish belief in God and the Jewish angst.
Buddha - and IMO Theravada Buddhism in places like Sri Lanka is not that far from what Buddha was into - wasn't interested in wanky theologico-philosophic speculation. Hinduism in his time, like Judaism in Jesus' time, was solidified and intellectually and morally constipated.
Buddha was into teaching people into overcoming the pain and suffering of life. Transcending it.
Do you think Jesus was all that different? Forget the theological bullshit and clever phrases and take that question seriously.
It seems interesting to me that Christian monks, like the late Thomas Merton, with a practice of contemplation and meditation, can, without in any way compromising their Christian beliefs, understand what Buddhist monks, like Thich Nhat Hanh are attempting to do and realise that it is similar.
God is unimaginable. The genuine, nonwanky Christian mystics: Francis of Assisi; Dante Alighieiri; St John of the Cross et sim bear witness to it. God is calling us to depth, not wank.
I think Mad Geo has a point. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
... 'The Christian God' is not a description of one kind of god that happens to be chosen by Christians. ...
Well, Dave, sadly, I don't think that's the way many Nonchristians see it.
Um, yes. Most of us seem agreed about that.
quote:
Buddha was into teaching people into overcoming the pain and suffering of life. Transcending it.
Do you think Jesus was all that different?
No, I don't think Jesus was all that different. He thought for himself, refused to be bound by the religious expectations of his time, made sense to and inspired those drawn to what he was on about.
quote:
It seems interesting to me that Christian monks, like the late Thomas Merton, with a practice of contemplation and meditation, can, without in any way compromising their Christian beliefs, understand what Buddhist monks, like Thich Nhat Hanh are attempting to do and realise that it is similar.
So what you're saying between the wank this and bullshit that is we should sit at the feet of the mystics you approve of and unthinkingly accept 'their Christian beliefs' like what you do?
quote:
God is unimaginable. The genuine, nonwanky Christian mystics: Francis of Assisi; Dante Alighieiri; St John of the Cross et sim bear witness to it. God is calling us to depth, not wank.
You think depth is bearing witness to what you don't have a clue about (if it's unimaginable)? Wank and bullshit all you like if that's how you make sense of life. Not much use to anyone interested in more than bodily functions, though, is it?
[ 03. July 2009, 12:51: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Dave, just because you wank when you meditate doesn't mean everybody does.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chill
Shipmate
# 13643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
If this claim you are making is true then I assume you can provide it with some evidential value.
I made no claim, only stated a fact. Here's another one. You can assume whatever you like. Doesn't make for an interesting discussion, though.
So you get to arbitrarily decide what constitutes a fact without any evidence or reasoned argument that does not make for any discussion at all interesting or not it is just an assertion.
You asserted and claim factual status for the theory that evidence must be provided for a claim to have value in rational decision making.
You cannot or will not provide evidence for this claim/fact your augment is circular. i.e. your conclusion that X is true rests solely on your unproven assumption that X is true. If any evidence can be provide for this ‘FACT’ it would have to be on the basis of an appeal to experience which you wish to dismiss when religious people make the same appeal so your argument does not have a rational leg to stand on.
Chaz
Posts: 343 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
