|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Belief in Jesus. Easy, innit
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
You do not have any reason beyond your own irrational feelings that Jesus exists at all.
Well, I have rather a lot of evidence that someone called Jesus existed.
And something or other excited his wimpish followers into radical action a few days or weeks after his death at the hands of the Romans. There's another thread on that.
quote:
In fact, suppose the person in question already agreed with you about Jesus. Shouldn't you be happy they're going to Heaven?
And before you say that's ludicrous, I know a Christian woman who was actually jealous when an old bloke we both knew in the church died. She said it quite openly in the church, and this was as soon as she found out he'd died, and she didn't change her tune either.
That is a completely different issue.
quote:
Because you are happy perceiving a colour that doesn't exist.
What do you mean, "believe in"? I believe that my eyes give me signals that tell me what frequency the light that's entering them is at, and that those signals are reliable enough that I'm able to distinguish walls and cliffs from other things. That's all I believe about what I see. So what is all this "believing in the nonexistent colour purple" thing?
quote:
You do not have any evidence whatsoever for [Jesus being God].
Yes I do. As I said, something excited his followers. This has been gone over countless times. So don't argue here about it. The fact is that I DO NOT have "no evidence whatsoever". I'd junk Christianity if that was the case. As would you.
quote:
You won't admit it, but it is entirely possible that your hope in God is just as much a mental construct as your perception of the colour purple.
Yes, I freely admit it, so why do you assume that it's too hard for me? You must have a rather low opinion of me.
It is entirely possible that my hope in God is a mental construct.
Satisfied?
quote:
It just means that your conviction that because you believe you're right, that you must be right, or that because you think your reasoning is so likely to be correct that it must be
I don't have a conviction I'm right because I believe I'm right. I have a belief that it is more likely I'm generally right than generally wrong, because of the evidence presented to me. If that evidence should change, I'll reassess what I believe.
Now Mrmister, you have made A FLIPPING LOT of assumptions about me, based on even less evidence than you say I have for the existence of God. May I suggest that you stop doing that sort of thing? Now!
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
[...] It just means that your conviction that because you believe you're right, that you must be right, or that because you think your reasoning is so likely to be correct that it must be, is without ultimate foundation beyond anyone else's socially acceptable delusions.
Have you considered that the term "faith" could have a far more fundamental meaning within the nature of being than "belief in something unproven"? Proof (or lack thereof) for confirming theorems about truth is a human mechanism used to predict events within a framework that is repeatable.
I'm struggling to express an idea that is founded in direct personal experience that is the result of releasing one's hold on symbols and knowing a concept intimately. As I read back over that sentence it's obvious I'm clouding the issue with the same vague symbols that must be suspended to arrive at my meaning. "Faith" is a dim reflection (shadow, symbol, representation) of a power (force, law, immanation) intimately part of the act of creation; of how all things become. It is not founded on our limited perception of physical law, but once again, part of the act of being created.
I feel like I'm trying to build a bridge out of sand in a windstorm.
[ 12. February 2006, 23:44: Message edited by: Gort ]
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
but please do not pronounce your beliefs to me expecting me to swoon and see the light and agree with you, just because YOU happen to believe your beliefs.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Christianity largely sets out its stall on the basis that if you believe in Jesus, you will go to Heaven when you die....
Ah, Hankism rears its head.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
U
Shipmate
# 5930
|
Posted
I have a fairly simple answer that works for me which I got when I looked up love in the dictionary. Lief is old english for love. Be Lief could be seen as Be Love. So your beliefs are simply that which you choose to love. If you love Jesus then yes, you go to Heaven, no questions asked.
--------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U
Today's post brought to you by the letter U because I like U
Posts: 176 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
Well, I have rather a lot of evidence that someone called Jesus existed. And something or other excited his wimpish followers into radical action a few days or weeks after his death at the hands of the Romans. There's another thread on that.
Actually you don't.
I want to distinguish between evidence for the historical existence of Jesus the man (which is scant and rife with fraud), and evidence for the historical existence of Jesus the God (which is by nature impossible since God is spirit).
If you're going to be strict about it, historical method presupposes that miracles are not valid, because they do not happen in the normal course of events. But I don't want to get drawn into that debate, because it is unnecessary: evidence of Jesus the man, even if he did weird things, does NOT mean he is necessarily God.
Would people die for a lie? Too right they would. They do all over the world, all through history.
Just because of "radical action", or the existence of an early Christian community, that no more proves that Jesus is God than the existence of the witch trials proves there are witches.
quote:
That is a completely different issue.
No, it's not, because you were talking about your personal perception leading you to intervene in the life of another.
quote:
I believe that my eyes give me signals that tell me what frequency the light that's entering them is at, and that those signals are reliable enough that I'm able to distinguish walls and cliffs from other things. That's all I believe about what I see. So what is all this "believing in the nonexistent colour purple" thing?
Please, please, TRY and listen to me.
Imagine the spectrum. Here, I'll draw part of it:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X.Infra-red........Visible light........UV....................X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
....................A..................B
Now. The parts of the spectrum I have marked with the letters "A" and "B" are BOTH seen as "purple" by the brain.
Can you see how A and B are two completely distinct, non-contiguous parts of the spectrum?
There is NO *single* wavelength band that equates to your perception of "purple": there are TWO of them.
quote:
You do not have any evidence whatsoever for [Jesus being God].Yes I do. As I said, something excited his followers. This has been gone over countless times. So don't argue here about it.
No, you don't. You just THINK you do.
So what if his followers got a bit excited in your opinion?
Is excitement limited to Christianity? Nope.
Exactly how does someone believing that Jesus is God prove that he is?
quote:
I'd junk Christianity if that was the case. As would you.
No I wouldn't.
quote:
It is entirely possible that my hope in God is a mental construct.
Satisfied?
quote:
I don't have a conviction I'm right because I believe I'm right. I have a belief that it is more likely I'm generally right than generally wrong, because of the evidence presented to me. If that evidence should change, I'll reassess what I believe.
With respect, that is not true.
There can be no evidence whatsoever for Jesus being God - it's all FAITH.
You weren't alive when he walked the earth according to the religion.
So all you have to go on is the social myth of Christ.
Evidence of early believers, and of whatever they did, is NOT, repeat NOT, evidence that Jesus is God, and if you believe it is, I would suggest that is a remarkably foolish stance.
In my opinion, you need to dissociate the concept of popular support for religion from its truth.
[ 13. February 2006, 07:04: Message edited by: mrmister ]
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Do you like purple?
It doesn't exist.
How does that affect your opinion?
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
And do you not get it, colours are NO MORE THAN the means of communicating to our brain what wavelengths of light are entering our eyes. It's like saying that the sine waves on your oscilloscope you've got plugged into your 0.4μ&m detector don't exist, they're just what the oscilliscope uses to tell you that there are some light rays entering the detector . Rather a pointless exercise.
No, you're wrong.
The colour purple does NOT have a specific wavelength.
Imagine the visible spectrum. Imagine that diagram.
Now. At EITHER end, light is seen as purple.
There is NO such thing as one wavelength range for purple light.
I don’t have time to go through this in detail (even if I thought it worthwhile), but I thought I should flag up that this is bunkum.
For a start, the second is not a justification for the first (whether there is a specific wavelength of light for “purple” does not establish whether purple exists or not, any more that the lack of a wavelength of light specific to the Eiffel Tower demonstrates that the Eiffel Tower does not exist). And secondly, purple can be regarded as "existing" or "not existing" based on one's definition of "exist", and that only takes us to a Humpty Dumpty argument where we give our own meaning to words other people are using. In a similar fashion one could debate whether anger, fear etc exist (can't put them in a test tube) or whether the present or future exist.
Now I have to get in my car (assuming my car exists - not having a specific frequency of sound associated with it, in mrmister’s world it might not) to go to work, where I will spend eight hours desperately trying to work out whether I am a butterfly dreaming that I am a person.
Bunkum.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
whether there is a specific wavelength of light for “purple” does not establish whether purple exists or not, any more that the lack of a wavelength of light specific to the Eiffel Tower demonstrates that the Eiffel Tower does not exist
Correct.
Likewise, having a social conception of God does not prove he exists.
For example, the followers of Jesus getting a bit "excited".
quote:
And secondly, purple can be regarded as "existing" or "not existing" based on one's definition of "exist", and that only takes us to a Humpty Dumpty argument where we give our own meaning to words other people are using.
Absolutely.
Perception and objective reality are two completely different things.
quote:
In a similar fashion one could debate whether anger, fear etc exist (can't put them in a test tube) or whether the present or future exist.
Correct.
But to compare "evidence" for the existence of God with "evidence" for anger or fear is not fair.
There are measurable biophysical data, as well as subjective reports, that suggest that they exist - although these alone are not enough.
Which is why lie detectors can be fooled, and are therefore not admissible evidentially in courts of law.
But what data can there be to act as direct evidence that there is a God?
What would you measure? The size of his footsteps?
Would you listen for his soft sweet voice on the wind with a microphone?
No. Of course not.
The only "evidences" religionists can trot out are:
a). historical - which amounts, scantily, to evidence of the existence of believers - which does not take the argument any further than an individual standing up and saying "I Believe, therefore it must be true" - it's just that the person died a long while ago;
b). personal feelings - which are irrelevant - just because one feels something very strongly, that doesn't mean it has any basis in reality;
c). "change" of lifestyle - a particularly wicked doctrine which implicitly suggests that all those who do not share the same belief system are somehow morally defective, which is clearly not the case. Just ask Gandhi. And it also doesn't explain the proponents of religion who are most definitely NOT nice people.
d). holy teachings - this might include a book, for example. But again, why accept a book to be the Word-O'-God or even an accurate historical witness? If a witness in court suddenly started talking about how the Leprechauns mounted an attack on him, Your Honour, and how therefore that's why his car bashed into the car in front, the court would most likely decide the man to be a liar. Why should it necessarily be any different with people thousands of years ago? Does their being dead make their witness suddenly any more credible?
I find it absolutely laughable that people cannot conceive of the possibility of belief as a faith leap, while simultaneously promoting faith with all guns blazing.
To me it smacks of dishonesty and delusion.
The "local God phenomenon", you might say... social expedience masquerading as enlightenedness.
It reminds me of Carl Sagan's Dragon:
[Copyright material removed. It's all in the link you gave anyway]
Link: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
[ 13. February 2006, 08:52: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
whether there is a specific wavelength of light for “purple” does not establish whether purple exists or not, any more that the lack of a wavelength of light specific to the Eiffel Tower demonstrates that the Eiffel Tower does not exist
I would also point out that here you are confusing your subjective perception of the colour purple with its actual physical existence.
It doesn't actually physically exist.
You just PERCEIVE that it does. But that perception is your brain responding to either of two bands of light wavelengths.
Ironically, in truth, all colour is a mental construct; what is blue?
Can one capture it? Store it in a jar?
No.
It is a perceptual phenomenon.
Cats see the world in black and white to enhance contrast for capturing prey, whereas monkeys see the world in colour because they eat fruit and need the colour contrast to enhance their detection of fruit.
Does cats' black-and-white vision mean that the world physically is black and white?
Of course not.
No more than our seeing the world in colour means the world is coloured.
There are wavelengths of light.
What we perceive them to be is entirely a mental construct.
The colour purple is a particularly good example of this, because it shows very easily that the brain is applying its labels onto the world - light from either of those TWO wavelength bands gets the "purple" label from the brain.
Does that make the two wavelength bands identical? Nope. But your brain interprets them the same way regardless.
That's the difference between perception and reality.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
I find it absolutely laughable that people cannot conceive of the possibility of belief as a faith leap, while simultaneously promoting faith with all guns blazing.
To me it smacks of dishonesty and delusion.
So where on the ship have you found "people [who] cannot conceive of the possibility of belief as a faith leap"? For that matter, where have you read on the ship people "promoting faith with all guns blazing"??
You're setting up a straw-man which has very little to do with what anyone here is arguing. Which is all the more ironic when you're setting out what should be arguments of fact (conspiracies of translators distorting the gospel and so forth) as faith positions in need of no evidence to back them up.
To me, that smacks of dishonesty and delusion.
Regarding your dragon anecdote, I'm guessing that in your world copyright laws don't exist, either.
Peronel.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
If a tree falls in a forest.....
Everything to do with man is a perceptual phenomenon. It is how we interpret the world around us. I would extend that argument to the perception of God.
[Typo-you know my keyboard has never been the same since I tipped a glass of port over it]
[ 13. February 2006, 07:35: Message edited by: Pure as the Driven Yellow Snow ]
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
Have you considered that the term "faith" could have a far more fundamental meaning within the nature of being than "belief in something unproven"?
Yes.
quote:
Proof (or lack thereof) for confirming theorems about truth is a human mechanism used to predict events within a framework that is repeatable.
Not just proof, but the act of recognising any evidence at all.
Evidence - and proof - are what you accept them to be.
The key question is not "What proof is there for X?", but "What would YOU accept as proof for X?"
It's all perception.
quote:
I'm struggling to express an idea that is founded in direct personal experience that is the result of releasing one's hold on symbols and knowing a concept intimately.
Irrational things being by their very nature not rational.
quote:
As I read back over that sentence it's obvious I'm clouding the issue with the same vague symbols that must be suspended to arrive at my meaning.
That might suggest that your initial argument may be faulty.
quote:
"Faith" is a dim reflection (shadow, symbol, representation) of a power (force, law, immanation) intimately part of the act of creation; of how all things become. It is not founded on our limited perception of physical law, but once again, part of the act of being created.
But you've just made it fall within the remit of your "limited perception" by defining it - albeit with a definition that is personal and untestable - and therefore unquestionable... in such a system it is only to be accepted or not...
quote:
I feel like I'm trying to build a bridge out of sand in a windstorm.
In my opinion you are.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
Everything to do with man is a perceptual phenomenon. It is how we interpret the world around us. I would extend that argument to the perception of God.
A man's "perception" of God might be entirely sociological, or even epiphenomenal.
It might be an emergent property of society.
It might be the product of ignorance.
It might be the desperate need not to be alone and to believe that death is not the end, that this is not all there is.
But what it isn't is proof - or even evidence - that God exists.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
No more than our seeing the world in colour means the world is coloured.
There are wavelengths of light.
What we perceive them to be is entirely a mental construct.
The colour purple is a particularly good example of this, because it shows very easily that the brain is applying its labels onto the world - light from either of those TWO wavelength bands gets the "purple" label from the brain.
Does that make the two wavelength bands identical? Nope. But your brain interprets them the same way regardless.
That's the difference between perception and reality.
Actually, this is one area where perception does reflect reality.
The reality is that different objects reflect or emit different wavelengths or combinations of wavelengths of light.
The reality is that the receptors in our eyes respond to those wavelengths, triggering a response in our brain.
The fact that our brains aren't always very good at this, and that some brains (ie cat brains) are worse than others, doesn't alter that fundamental reality. Different wavelengths of light are being reflected, whether or not we have the ability to pick them up.
That a big red bus reflects different wavelengths of light than a small blue ball does is real. That remains real, regardless of whether I'm blind, so can't see those wavelengths; or am a cat, so just distinguish them in shades of grey; or am colour-blind so can't tell one from the other, anyway. How good my observation is doesn't alter what light is actually being reflected.
In the same way, if God is real, then his reality is independant of my ability to observe it. He is real (or not real) regardless of whether or not I believe in him: my belief does not alter existance. "Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is." Equally, it doesn't mean that it isn't.
And just because your brain is crap at interpreting wavelengths of light, so tends to mush some together as different shades of purple, doesn't mean those wavelengths aren't real.
Peronel.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
just because your brain is crap at interpreting wavelengths of light, so tends to mush some together as different shades of purple, doesn't mean those wavelengths aren't real.
Correct.
But it does mean that the subjective experience of purpleness doesn't have any basis in physical reality - it's a perceptual label.
That perceptual experience does not exist outside of your brain... only the wavelengths do.
quote:
In the same way, if God is real, then his reality is independant of my ability to observe it. He is real (or not real) regardless of whether or not I believe in him: my belief does not alter existance. "Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is." Equally, it doesn't mean that it isn't.
I agree. But usually religious people seem to assume, in my experience, that just because they believe something, that it must be true, *for example* because God has somehow miraculously opened their eyes to spiritual truths that the rest of us cannot perceive.
Which is why my signature is the way it is.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
You're tilting at windmills, Mr. mrmister.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
Could you please prove to me that anything exists; Everything is filtered through our senses.
What would you accept as proof that something exists?
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
But it does mean that the subjective experience of purpleness doesn't have any basis in physical reality - it's a perceptual label.
Bollocks.
The subjective experience of purpleness is triggered by exposing the eye to certain wavelengths of light.
That there are different groups of wavelengths that do that doesn't alter the fact that when the brain reports "purple" it does so in response to specific, external, stimuli.
That's the physical reality, to which the brain responds.
That's overlaid, of course, by memory, emotional responses, and so forth. When I see a specific shade of purple I think "mmmm chocolate", for example.
But I do so because the cadburys wrapper, the physical object, reflects light of specific wavelengths. And that wrapper - as far as anyone can be sure that reality exists - has an objective, physical existance.
Peronel.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
Could you please prove to me that anything exists; Everything is filtered through our senses.
What would you accept as proof that something exists?
I think this is my point. I believe in colour through vision. I accept the wavelength theory of light because it makes sense but I also accept it is a man derived theory that explains observable phenomenon. But everything we know and accept is human theory for observation through one of the senses.
I believe in God; because of experiential contact, and the historical accounts and written texts. I believe in colour because of experiential contact, and the historical accounts and written texts.
It is a faith. But all belief in all things is faith. I have faith in colour. To someone who is blind from birth, they can have faith in colour without a clear understanding. This mirrors my experience and faith in God, murky, incomplete but nonetheless real.
I cannot prove for you that God exists and is real. I can prove that a historical Jesus existed, with the same veracity as other figures of that time. But I believe.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
The subjective experience of purpleness is triggered by exposing the eye to certain wavelengths of light.
The subjective experience of purpleness is different from the light wavelengths themselves.
The "specific, external stimuli" and your "subjective experience" of them are two completely different things.
Your experience of the colour purple does not have any objective basis in reality - only the light wavelengths do.
The natural consequence of this is that people's subjective experiences of colour are impossible to compare. Your subjective perceptual experience of green might not match mine, even though we would both be responding to the same underlying wavelengths of light.
The point is, a feeling, no matter how strongly held, does not prove objectively that something objectively exists.
Just because you subjectively experience the colour purple does not mean that your subjective experience physically exists - it is a mental construct.
The link with religious faith is obvious - believing in God doesn't PROVE that God exists.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
I believe in God; because of experiential contact, and the historical accounts and written texts. I believe in colour because of experiential contact, and the historical accounts and written texts.
Nonsense. You didn't read historical accounts of colour when you were a child before starting to experience colour.
Colour did not require you to believe in it in order for you to experience it perceptually!
The fact that religious folk suggest that God does is suggestive. I do not believe that God's existence depends on my belief in him or on beliefs about him.
You believe in God because of experiential contact, you say? What contact? Did he descend from a cloud, tap you on the shoulder and say Oi, You?
Or do you mean what every other believer means - that what you subjectively experience as belief in God you are interpreting as evidence of God's direct spiritual intervention in your life?
quote:
It is a faith. But all belief in all things is faith.
I agree.
quote:
I cannot prove for you that God exists and is real.
Thank you. I agree.
quote:
But I believe.
Again, thank you. Again, I agree.
[ 13. February 2006, 08:20: Message edited by: mrmister ]
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wolfgang
Shipmate
# 10809
|
Posted
quote:
Did he descend from a cloud, tap you on the shoulder and say Oi, You?
He descended from heaven and said "follow me". There is no way to "prove" that Jesus was God, but the conclusion is not within the realm of absurdity. I suppose if we take your logic it would be impossible to prove Hitler was a bad man, because by using the word "bad" we make a value-judgement. But we can look at the things Hitler did and make a conclusion from them. Just as we can look at the things Jesus said and did and derive a conclusion from those. (Athough actually I wouldn't say that our calling Jesus God was a "value-judgement" as much as a "truth-claim")
--------------------
"The socialist who is a Christian is more to be dreaded than a socialist who is an atheist" - Dostoevksy
Posts: 121 | From: The North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
Whilst we are being agreeable, I reread your OP and feel
quote:
Christianity is not hard.
It's the Christians that are hard, in my opinion.
is one of the most sadly accurate descriptions I have heard in a long time.
My perception of God.
It is the feeling of joy that wells up inside without external stimulus but prayer. It was the sense of peace and 'It'll be OKness' when my son was born with significant risks of brain damage after an unrecognised placental abruption which accompanied my prayer of hoplessness and inablity to do anything to fix it. It's the observation of small miracles I see in my work when I pray for the patients whilst doing procedural or diagnostic work. It is the reasurrance of God's presence.
And there are times when I don't feel this. But these are perceptions, the way I perceive and interpret the world, like my five senses, and no less real to me. In the same way, you may see green differently to me, your experience of God will similarly be different.
All I can come back to is I believe, and wish you peace.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
The subjective experience of purpleness is triggered by exposing the eye to certain wavelengths of light.
The subjective experience of purpleness is different from the light wavelengths themselves.
The "specific, external stimuli" and your "subjective experience" of them are two completely different things.
Your experience of the colour purple does not have any objective basis in reality - only the light wavelengths do.
The use of the word "purple" is a means of categorising the wavelengths of light we perceive, as are all the words we put to colours (whether that be a clearly defined single wavelength such as that produced by a red laser, or the multi-wavelength composite that we call white). Humans have a need to categorise things in order to simply exist (eg: a categorising of fruit into "edible" and "poisonous"), and a common understanding of those categories is necessary for us to live in society. Yes, so those categories are mental constructs, and yes (in the case of colours at least) there are alternative categorisation schemes (not all societies share the red, orage, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet description of a rainbow).
But, and here's a big but, you agree that we're talking about perception of something that has objective reality independent of our perceptions, ie: however we categorise the responses of our eyes, the wavelength of light (or the combination of wavelengths) does not change.
Which is what I've been saying about Jesus all along. Irrespective of what you or I believe about Jesus doesn't change his objective reality independent of our beliefs. That's also true regardless of our ability to know that objective reality. We can't know the colour of Jesus eyes - you may believe them to be blue, I may believe them to be green, someone else might believe they were hazel. None of which would mean that Jesus eyes were constantly changing colour to match the beliefs of others.
So, given that there is an objective reality to Jesus (which could, of course, include the possible objective reality that he never even existed) and everyone has some belief about Jesus (ranging from "he never existed" to "he was God Incarnate, died and rose again, and sits by my bed everynight listening to my prayers") there are two obvious questions.
1) Which of the range of possible beliefs about Jesus corresponds closest to the objective reality?
2) Does it matter whether or not what one believes about Jesus corresponds closely to the objective reality?
(and, I suppose, we still need to know whether when you talk about "belief in Jesus" you're even asking the same thing as "belief about Jesus")
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, on a seperate note. Slightly irregular as we try to avoid acting as host or admin on threads we're participating in, but the Purgatory hosts are not immediately available, I've deleted the long quote from Carl Sagan mrmister posted earlier. The link he provided (which I see is now in his sig too) gives the full thing. The quoting of full works, or overly lengthy extracts from them, is a violation of the authors copyright. And, is in breach of Commandment 7 here.
Any questions about this, please raise them in the Styx or ask me (or one of the other hosts or admins) privately.
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
[The colour purple] doesn't actually physically exist.
You just PERCEIVE that it does. But that perception is your brain responding to either of two bands of light wavelengths.
More than anything else this convinces me that you don't kow what you are talking about. There are no "two bands of wavelengths" that are perceived as the colour purple. What you are, presumably, thinking of are the extreme ends of the spectrum visible to humans, one of which is perceived as deep red, the other as deep blue, tending to "purplish". But these are not "purple.
You seem to be mixing up "purple" with the range of colour termed "magenta", which is not capable of being formed from a single wavelength/frequency of light, but can be "created" by mixing two other wavelengths/frequencies (from the red and blue ends of the visible spectrum). I think that knowing the subject before commenting so dogmatically on it might help you.
You also seem to be getting confused by the idea of reality.
Whatever, it's still bunkum.
Back to thinking that I'm a butterfly dreaming I am a person. Or perhaps I'll do something useful.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
There is no way to "prove" that Jesus was God
I agree.
quote:
but the conclusion is not within the realm of absurdity.
I agree.
But what is absurd? There is plenty in the Bible that, were someone contemporaneous to make similar claims, would render that person denounced as a madman or an imbecile or the such like.
quote:
He descended from heaven and said "follow me".
You mean you believe the account of others who may or may not have existed, who allegedly claim he did.
Or are you saying God descended right in front of your very own eyes?
[ 13. February 2006, 09:13: Message edited by: mrmister ]
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
The subjective experience of purpleness is triggered by exposing the eye to certain wavelengths of light.
The subjective experience of purpleness is different from the light wavelengths themselves.
Yes, of course it is.
But saying the two are different is very different from saying - as you did - that:
quote:
the subjective experience of purpleness doesn't have any basis in physical reality
Its that argument that's bullshit.
Peronel.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
the subjective experience of purpleness doesn't have any basis in physical reality
Its that argument that's bullshit.
No, that's not true.
I think you're misreading the sentence.
The subjective experience of purpleness itself doesn't have any basis in physical reality in that it is not *itself* a physical entity.
Regardless of how strongly we perceive purple, it does not actually exist.
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
You seem to be mixing up "purple" with the range of colour termed "magenta", which is not capable of being formed from a single wavelength/frequency of light, but can be "created" by mixing two other wavelengths/frequencies (from the red and blue ends of the visible spectrum). I think that knowing the subject before commenting so dogmatically on it might help you.
The point is that it is a mental construct, not an actual physical entity.
[ 13. February 2006, 10:20: Message edited by: mrmister ]
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
The subjective experience of purpleness itself doesn't have any basis in physical reality in that it is not *itself* a physical entity.
What you seem to be implying here is that a subjective experience is a subjective experience - not especially profound.
What you have also done is say that a something (in this case a colour) exists (your definition exists) if it can be formed from a single wavelength of light. Having created your own defnition of what exists (back to Humpty Dumpty) you can then say that under your definition purple does not exist. Well, if you make you own defninitions then word can mean anything you want them to mean.
You later modified your position by saying that all colours do not exist, as they are subjective constraucts. But this can be said of anything. What we now have is a position where of "we can prove nothing". This is a valid debating point, but it has nothing very specific to do with religion, belief etc. Two atheists could equally debate whether we can truly know anything - back to the butterfly dreaming that it is a person. This ought to be in a thread entitled "We can absolutely know nothing".
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
purpleness itself doesn't have any basis in physical reality in that it is not *itself* a physical entity.
A mixture of electromagnetic radiation of wavelength 400nm and electromagnetic radiation of wavelength 700nm is as much a physical entity as electromagnetic radiation of 550nm
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
What you seem to be implying here is that a subjective experience is a subjective experience - not especially profound.
I don't claim to be profound.
I just say that I believe in Jesus, but I need not prove God, nor can I... nor do I believe that others can prove God, nor need they.
quote:
What we now have is a position where of "we can prove nothing". This is a valid debating point
I agree.
quote:
but it has nothing very specific to do with religion, belief etc.
Clearly false! Religious people talk about proving the existence of God, and of evidences for his existence, all the time - so clearly it has something specific to do with religion.
quote:
A mixture of electromagnetic radiation of wavelength 400nm and electromagnetic radiation of wavelength 700nm is as much a physical entity as electromagnetic radiation of 550nm
Yes, but that radiation is not your perception of colouredness.
Electromagnetic radiation is electromagnetic radiation.
Your perception of colour is your perception of colour.
The two are different.
As LSD, and lesion studies of the visual cortex, all demonstrate.
Your perception of colour is completely different from electromagnetic radiation.
Perhaps you should get YOUR facts right?
[ 13. February 2006, 10:40: Message edited by: mrmister ]
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Mrmister,
In your reply to my last post, you went utterly overboard. You made the your point several pages ago that different wavelengths of light can be represented as the colour purple. I understood it perfectly then. I then went on to say that all I believed about colour was that my eyes show me what wavelengths of light are coming in, and though they're flawed, they give a good enough picture that I can avoid walls and cliffs. You then repeated your crap about my 'belief in the colour purple'. If you actually took time to read my post, you'd have noticed that I was actually sort of agreeing with you. You seem to believe that I have some view of purpleness that I don't actually have. It would be nice if you read my posts and found that out, for once.
You then went on to refute my clim that I have some sort of evidence for Jesus. You said I have no evidence at all. Well, a) it is another thread so I didn't list it all, and b) YOu may think that it is extremely bad evidence. You can produce better evidence that overpowers it if you like. However, you cannot deny that it is no evidence at all. A very small quantitiy is still different from nothing.
In your last couple of posts directed at me, you have made several assumptions about me and the way my mind works. You have not bothered to find out these things from me beforehand - they were assumptions with no basis in fact. I've then flatly refuted these, because I know these things about me, because I'm me and you're not me. You've then come along and told me I'm wrong. Well, I've quite frankly got better things to do than waste my time with a campaigning, unlistening jerk like you who talks alot of crap. Good day to you.
Oh, and about your signiature, you may want to change it. Radiohead said it much better than you. "Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there."
There There
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
quote:
but it has nothing very specific to do with religion, belief etc.
Clearly false! Religious people talk about proving the existence of God, and of evidences for his existence, all the time - so clearly it has something specific to do with religion.
That doesn't make it specifically relgious. I probably use terms like "prove", "believe", "think" etc far more often in non-relgious contexts than in relgious ones.
quote:
Originally posted by mrmister:
Electromagnetic radiation is electromagnetic radiation.
Your perception of colour is your perception of colour.
The two are different.
Here we get back to your circular argument. You have defined colour as a subjective experience, and use this as proof that colour is a subjective experience. Personally I believe that the magenta toner in my printer remains magenta toner, even when I'm not looking at it.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
narnie83
Shipmate
# 11009
|
Posted
Read Kierkegaard, he has lots to say on all these matters. Quite rudely, usually. Bless him.
Posts: 197 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
For those of us without the time and patience to read Kierkegaard, would you be able to summarise the pertinant parts of his writing for us?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wolfgang
Shipmate
# 10809
|
Posted
quote:
You mean you believe the account of others who may or may not have existed, who allegedly claim he did.
Or are you saying God descended right in front of your very own eyes?
I mean, of course, the accounts of others. Its not a matter of "they may or may not have existed"...evidently someone somewhere did exist who wrote down accounts of Jesus' life and hence existed. It may be true that we don't know everything there is to know about the NT writers, but whoever they were I think the evidence to suggest they were followers of Jesus is overwhelming.
Posts: 121 | From: The North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Hosting
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Well, I've quite frankly got better things to do than waste my time with a campaigning, unlistening jerk like you who talks alot of crap.
We provide a perfectly good forum listed just below this one for posting personal attacks. Per the Ship's third commandment, this is completely out of line in Purgatory.
RuthW
Purgatory host
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
narnie83
Shipmate
# 11009
|
Posted
I would recommend reading Kierkegaard himself because the polemical and complicated nature of his writings aren't best suited to being summarised, and are pretty rewarding.
I am writing my undergraduate dissertation on Kierkegaard's ideas on and use of Scripture, so there's an awful lot I could say!
But what struck me most as pertinent points is his arguments in Concluding Unscientific Postscript about faith and a reasoned belief based on evidence have little to do with each other and are really incommensurable: the importance of faith is that it is a leap, and if you believe on evidence your faith could be subject to change, because another bit of evidence might come along. There is too much at stake in matters of religion to leave it to historical-criticism, natural theology, etc.
But I think this aspect of his religious thought has been stressed at the expense of the idea that faith is not assent to a doctrine, faith is lived by the individual. So far, so Lutheran. The difference with Kierkegaard is that religious truth is not something that can be known objectively, it is something that is lived. The teachings of the Bible and Christianity can only be understood in practice, through imitation of Christ (though this must go hand in hand with Christ as Redeemer). Faith does not come from scholarly deliberation, for it is a decision, a decision about yourself, and all essential decision is rooted in subjectivity.
As regards the Bible, in a book called For Self-Examination he wrote a discourse about using the Bible as a mirror to look at yourself and your life with (an individualistic version of Calvin's spectacles of Scripture), and to do this see it as a letter from one's beloved. You have to read it, read it as if it were to you, sitting down quibbling over the words and historical details is not really reading it, as one would read a letter. Yes there are difficult passages in the Bible, but there are plenty of straightforward ones, and until we can be satisfied that we've lived in accordance with the straightforward ones (not something many of us reach), then we can start judging the Bible. Before that, we must use it to judge ourselves.
Judge ourselves, not other people - in parts of this thread people are talking about dogma onsalvation, faith and deeds, etc. It reminded me of a Kierkegaard discourse called 'Love will be known by its fruits' in Works of Love, in which he points out that 'the tree shall be known by its fruits is meant to tell us that how we act shows how we are, not as something to judge other people with and/or beat them down with it. As David is horrified by Nathan's parable and righteously angry at the nameless man, before Nathan says 'you are the man!' the passage on a tree being known by its fruits says 'you are the tree!'
*I'm saying what Kierkegaard says here, not what I think. I can't answer for him. Read him, he's much more convincing than me. I don't know what bits are relevant to which bits of this long and occasionally aggressive thread. Just my tuppence worth. I'm new and scared of flaming!
Posts: 197 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Thanks narnie83, I can certainly see where some of the ideas of Kierkegaard would be relevant to this thread. And, I've now some pointers where to look if I get myself down to a decent library and check some books out (though I suspect they could easily be above my head, and I honestly doubt I'll have enough time - which is a perpetual problem). In the absense of actually having read anything, I'm going to have to just comment on your summary.
quote:
Originally posted by narnie83:
But what struck me most as pertinent points is his arguments in Concluding Unscientific Postscript about faith and a reasoned belief based on evidence have little to do with each other and are really incommensurable: the importance of faith is that it is a leap, and if you believe on evidence your faith could be subject to change, because another bit of evidence might come along.
This strikes me as a different definition of faith than I'd be comfortable with. Yes, ultimately faith involves taking a step beyond what is known (as the writer to the Hebrews put it, "certainty in what is unseen"). But, for me, that step is taken from a basis of what is known, or at least what you're fairly sure of. That is, the basis for faith is reasoned belief based on evidence. Also, note I said "step" not "leap" - though some people do leap, I don't think it's necessary and a series of small steps gets you there just as well.
Also, I'm not at all sure on his concerns about faith changing if based, partly at least, on evidence. What's wrong with new information changing your faith? Maybe it's the scientist in me, but I don't think of faith as something dogmatically held regardless of the evidence. Rather, faith is something tentatively held on the basis of the evidence.
quote:
But I think this aspect of his religious thought has been stressed at the expense of the idea that faith is not assent to a doctrine, faith is lived by the individual. So far, so Lutheran. The difference with Kierkegaard is that religious truth is not something that can be known objectively, it is something that is lived. The teachings of the Bible and Christianity can only be understood in practice, through imitation of Christ (though this must go hand in hand with Christ as Redeemer). Faith does not come from scholarly deliberation, for it is a decision, a decision about yourself, and all essential decision is rooted in subjectivity.
I was with him, more or less, all the way there, until the "all essential decision is rooted in subjectivity" where I'm afraid I don't quite see why a decision has to be subjective. If he means it's a decision I make then fine, but I'm afraid I think I'd disagree if he was claiming decisions can't be made based on objective criteria.
I'd also say that "religious truth is not something that can be known objectively, it is something that is lived" doesn't quite ring true for me either. Certainly religious truth is something that is lived. But, I think there's also an element of objectivity in the knowing of that truth.
I'm thinking that where I'm disagreeing here is also highlighting some of where I'm having problems with what mrmister is saying.
quote:
Just my tuppence worth. I'm new and scared of flaming!
And, a good tuppence it was too. Carry on like that and I see no danger of being flamed. Disagreed with, possibly. But, it's not much of a discussion if people don't disagree about something.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
narnie83
Shipmate
# 11009
|
Posted
quote:
faith is something tentatively held on the basis of the evidence
For me (not our Soren) the evidence of faith is the faith that I have, i.e. I believe because of experience of prayer, the sense of holiness, just that belief in God that I have in my gut. That's not believing for no reason, it's just a reason-less reason, if you like. If it wasn't there then my belief in God would be like tossing a coin, and without having any reason I suspect it would be bereft of content as well. But I myself wouldn't get faith from scientific 'evidence', like the design or the cosmological arguments for God's existence, because the 'evidence' they cite could mean any number of things. That said, I think philosophically it's not unreasonable to claim that they do point towards a creator or a rationale behind the universe, but can tell us absolutely nothing about that creator. And I've never been inclined to believe from the evidence of Gospels, I guess I believe the account because
I already believe.
Posts: 197 | From: Glasgow | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrmister
Shipmate
# 10850
|
Posted
quote:
I've never been inclined to believe from the evidence of Gospels, I guess I believe the account because I already believe.
I agree. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Just because you believe something is true, that doesn't mean it is.
Check out this link about Carl Sagan's Dragon: http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
Posts: 417 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
