board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Justifications for faith

Post Reply   Page 4 of 6  [ 114 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Author Message
tinwe
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Jan , 2008 5:32 am
Waiting for winter
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2380
Joined: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 1:46 am
Location: Jr. High
 
Iavas_Saar wrote:
tinwë wrote:
Imagine two people, a scientist and an artist, looking at a rock. The scientist sees an aggregate of minerals held together by molecular bonds. The artist sees a potential statue. Both of what they see is a form of “truth” about the rock, but they are truths that are very nearly mutually exclusive of each other. The scientist can never see the potential statue in the rock using science alone. That is something that is entirely the purview of the artist.
I have to disagree again. I think what I previously wrote explains that the scientist can understand the artistic development of our species in scientific terms. So he sees the rock as both a collection of molecules, and also a potential tool for the "play" of the human species.
So, all it takes to be an artist is to “understand the artistic development of our species in scientific terms?” Brilliant.
Iavas_Saar wrote:
I think the universe and the diversity of life and natural beauty on this planet is pretty inspiring and anything but dull, I don't need religion for that.
Beauty? Please, explain to me what beauty is, in purely scientific terms, in a way that moves me emotionally, you know, the way that beauty is supposed to move us? If you can do that, I will agree that science is all we need to understand and appreciate every aspect of human existence.
Iavas_Saar wrote:
My interest was to see how different people cope with difficult questions about the nature of faith, and yes, to challenge what I see as weak or troubling premises.
As I recall, your original impetus for this discussion was this post where you asked why it was ok to bash 911 conspiracies but not religion. So you created a thread where you can bash religion. Wow. You must be so proud.

_________________

[ img ]

I am a child, I'll last a while.
You can't conceive
of the pleasure in my smile.


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Jan , 2008 5:33 am
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Quote:
It is much easier to bash faith than to defend it, I'm afraid.
And I'm afraid that just supports my point - that faith is not easy to defend. Why? Because it can't stand up to scrutiny.

Why do people stand so strongly behind something that they concede is difficult to defend?

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Jan , 2008 6:02 am
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
tinwë wrote:
Iavas_Saar wrote:
I have to disagree again. I think what I previously wrote explains that the scientist can understand the artistic development of our species in scientific terms. So he sees the rock as both a collection of molecules, and also a potential tool for the "play" of the human species.
So, all it takes to be an artist is to “understand the artistic development of our species in scientific terms?” Brilliant.
That would be your own extrapolation from what I said. My only point is that the scientist should be able to understand that the rock could play a variety of roles in the natural development of human culture, including being a tool for an artist.
Quote:
Iavas_Saar wrote:
I think the universe and the diversity of life and natural beauty on this planet is pretty inspiring and anything but dull, I don't need religion for that.
Beauty? Please, explain to me what beauty is, in purely scientific terms, in a way that moves me emotionally, you know, the way that beauty is supposed to move us? If you can do that, I will agree that science is all we need to understand and appreciate every aspect of human existence.
Beauty is subjective, but the human desire to search for beauty is part of the natural development of humans that I've already described.
Quote:
Iavas_Saar wrote:
My interest was to see how different people cope with difficult questions about the nature of faith, and yes, to challenge what I see as weak or troubling premises.
As I recall, your original impetus for this discussion was this post where you asked why it was ok to bash 911 conspiracies but not religion. So you created a thread where you can bash religion. Wow. You must be so proud.
I seem to have touched a nerve, so you'll believe what you want - however the truth is the mention of 9/11 was an afterthought in a different thread, which is why it was not mentioned in the original post. I have every right to challenge religion and have done so with clear, logical refutations, and without using personal attacks.

You, on the other hand, have not tried to directly refute my natural explanation for the development of art etc.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
tinwe
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Jan , 2008 6:25 am
Waiting for winter
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2380
Joined: Fri 04 Mar , 2005 1:46 am
Location: Jr. High
 
I don’t dispute your explanation of the development of art, I simply don’t believe that science can tell me anything meaningful about art itself. You keep telling me that science can tell me everything I need to know about existence and the human condition, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that. These are things that art, and philosophy, and religion deal with, but so far the best you have given me from science is that beauty is subjective. You’ll forgive me if I am not inspired by that bit of erudition.

Look, I’ll make it easy on you. Pick your favorite work of art and explain to me in purely scientific terms everything about how and why it moves you emotionally. If you can’t do that than I will appreciate it if you would stop insulting my intelligence by telling me I’m wrong when I say that science can’t tell me everything there is to know.

_________________

[ img ]

I am a child, I'll last a while.
You can't conceive
of the pleasure in my smile.


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Jan , 2008 6:42 am
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Quote:
I don’t dispute your explanation of the development of art, I simply don’t believe that science can tell me anything meaningful about art itself.
I don't see why it needs to. It is enough to explain how art developed, so that we don't need anything mystical to account for it.
Quote:
You keep telling me that science can tell me everything I need to know about existence and the human condition, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that. These are things that art, and philosophy, and religion deal with, but so far the best you have given me from science is that beauty is subjective. You’ll forgive me if I am not inspired by that bit of erudition.
The comprehension of beauty is one of our advanced methods of relaxation. For each individual person there may be several factors that determine what kind of thing they consider to be beautiful, though too psychologically complex to analyse in any depth.
Quote:
Look, I’ll make it easy on you. Pick your favorite work of art and explain to me in purely scientific terms everything about how and why it moves you emotionally. If you can’t do that than I will appreciate it if you would stop insulting my intelligence by telling me I’m wrong when I say that science can’t tell me everything there is to know.
You have no reason to feel insulted because I have never said that science can tell you "everything there is to know". All I've argued is that the presense of abstract concepts such as art and philosophy in our culture does not have to be an indication of anything mystical.

I cannot describe my favorite piece of art in scientific terms, but I can explain why I might want to visit an art gallery.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
jewelsong
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Jan , 2008 8:52 am
Just keep singin'!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1729
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 9:26 pm
Location: UK
 
Iavas, I haven't forgotten about this thread. Far from it. But RL has interferred a bit in my plan to post.

Also, I have been reading the posts of others and wondering how best to respond to you. In some way, we ae in an "apples and oranges" situation, I think. You are asking about one thing and people are earnestly describing something completely different.

But I promise to try to have a worthy post before the weekend is through.


Top
Profile Quote
MariaHobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Jan , 2008 4:44 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8041
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
Iavas wrote:
Likewise for you, why don't you show off your "cheats" to a scientist and get this concept proved once and for all? If all these mystical people really can manipulate energy that has real effects on the world, it should have been proved already.
I am a very shy person in real life. I can't stand to have people *notice* me in ordinary settings. I would likely go insane in a lab rat sort of setting. The chance of me actually being able to do anything with someone observing me would be slim to none.

And about the person who can influence the weather- I will not break faith and tell any more about the one I know... but I can refer you to a book about a person with a similar talent who DID go public and got a lot of grief for it: "The PK Man: A True Story of Mind-Over-Matter" by Jeffrey Mishlove. Ted Owens wasn't afraid of publicity, and went to great lengths to prove what he could do, some of them quite evil in my opinion. :nono:

Anyway, that's not really part of the discussion. Much of what I told you about is personal mind/ body manipulation or basic psionics... but some of it isn't.

The I Ching is really remarkable, not coincidence, and inexplicable to me.

The contact I had, where I knew Everything was not a dream. What, exactly, it was, I don't know.

Using runes as a child- how could I know that?

And as an aside, here's an article about Couples feel each other's pain It was only after reading that article that I could accept what was happening between my husband and I.

OH, and something I left out yesterday. When we were renovating that house this last summer, we were working ourselves to a frazzle. 16-18 hour days of hard physical labor, and then driving home 2 hours after that. I don't use caffiene any more so there were times when I was dangerously exhausted and even the audio book wasn't keeping me awake. I found that I could tap into chi (or ki) while driving, and pull it into me, and suddenly I'd be awake and alert as if I'd just woken from a nap. I couldn't use the techniques I'd used at home, instead I reasoned that this energy source was coming from another dimension (I called it subspace at the time, being a Star Trek fan :D ) and that I could probably just as easily pull the energy into this dimension right inside me, sidestepping the need for lowering personal shields and the meditation that required.

Sure, it could be psycosomatic, but the point is, it worked. I felt the energy flow, and felt energized and joyful. This stuff just bubbled up inside me like daffodils and laughter on a warm spring day. It was tapping into a well of *joy* inside me and letting it fill my body and everything was OK.

No, I can't prove it to you. Can you prove this reality is even real? That you are even here?

_________________


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Jan , 2008 6:27 pm
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Quote:
And about the person who can influence the weather- I will not break faith and tell any more about the one I know... but I can refer you to a book about a person with a similar talent who DID go public and got a lot of grief for it: "The PK Man: A True Story of Mind-Over-Matter" by Jeffrey Mishlove. Ted Owens wasn't afraid of publicity, and went to great lengths to prove what he could do, some of them quite evil in my opinion.
From reading some of the comments about this book, it seems more likely that he was just good at predictions. Some of it is preposterous - causing Mt St Helens to blow? I will not deny that the human brain might have abilities we don't yet understand - but I think if it does they will have natural, scientific explanations and not be anything spiritual.
Quote:
The I Ching is really remarkable, not coincidence, and inexplicable to me.
I don't understand fully how it works, but it sounds no more remarkable than people who think their horoscopes apply to them every day.
Quote:
The contact I had, where I knew Everything was not a dream. What, exactly, it was, I don't know.
I believe the mind can create epiphany-like states on its own.
Quote:
Using runes as a child- how could I know that?
There are a limited number of possible shapes and combinations for runes, and you did say that not all of them matched. Alternatively, you were exposed to the pagan runes subconsciously at an earlier stage. Don't underestimate the power of subliminal suggestion - the mind picks up and stores far more information that we realise.
Quote:
And as an aside, here's an article about Couples feel each other's pain It was only after reading that article that I could accept what was happening between my husband and I.
But this article suggests a scientific explanation (similar to what I suggested), not a spiritual one.
Quote:
OH, and something I left out yesterday. When we were renovating that house this last summer, we were working ourselves to a frazzle. 16-18 hour days of hard physical labor, and then driving home 2 hours after that. I don't use caffiene any more so there were times when I was dangerously exhausted and even the audio book wasn't keeping me awake. I found that I could tap into chi (or ki) while driving, and pull it into me, and suddenly I'd be awake and alert as if I'd just woken from a nap. I couldn't use the techniques I'd used at home, instead I reasoned that this energy source was coming from another dimension (I called it subspace at the time, being a Star Trek fan Mr. Green ) and that I could probably just as easily pull the energy into this dimension right inside me, sidestepping the need for lowering personal shields and the meditation that required.

Sure, it could be psycosomatic, but the point is, it worked. I felt the energy flow, and felt energized and joyful. This stuff just bubbled up inside me like daffodils and laughter on a warm spring day. It was tapping into a well of *joy* inside me and letting it fill my body and everything was OK.
"Sure, it could be psycosomatic, but the point is, it worked."

You atleast recognise the more rational possibility - a psychosomatic effect is the obvious explanation, and doesn't require convoluted reasoning about energy in extra dimensions.
Quote:
No, I can't prove it to you. Can you prove this reality is even real? That you are even here?
I don't think that's a helpful question because it's a belief that virtually every other belief is built on - including your spiritual beliefs.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
MariaHobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Jan , 2008 8:40 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8041
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
OK, today I did an I Ching reading. The question I put was "How could I convince Iavas that the I Ching effect is real?

I threw the three coins, six times and noted the fall each time. The first five times I got 2 tails and a head, which in itself is pretty improbable. You'd have to get someone who understands statistics to figure the odds on that. Then I got 2 tails and a head, which, when you look it up on the chart, takes you to hexagram 43. That just means section 43 in the book. I haven't read the whole thing and didn't know what to expect, but when I got to the appropriate section, the title itself was an answer: "Break through". The only way you will ever believe in this stuff is with some kind of break through.


Now, what you ought to understand about the I Ching is that there are 64 different sections to the book, each one describing a different sort of change that people go through in their lives. The various sections have titles ranging from "youthful folly" to "conflict" to "peace" to "modesty" to "retreat" to "revolution". Here's a link to a site with them all if you are interested. http://www.akirarabelais.com/i/i.html

You should also keep in mind that this is a translation of a 5000 year old Chinese book, so there are cultural metaphors that will not make sense to us in this era, as well as the translation process itself. The "lines" listed on the website do not apply this time, according to the coin toss, but here's the text. I've read it several times now, and find much of value in it that is applicable to the whole situation of this thread. :) Of course, there's plenty I don't understand, but not having the poetry gene, I'm just handicapped that way.
Quote:
43. Kuai / Break-through (Resoluteness)

above TUI THE JOYOUS, LAKE
below CH'IEN THE CREATIVE, HEAVEN

This hexagram signifies on the one hand a break-through after a long
accumulation of tension, as a swollen river breaks through its dikes, or in the
manner of a cloudburst. On the other hand, applied to human conditions, it
refers to the time when inferior people gradually begin to disappear. Their
influence is on the wane; as a result of resolute action, a change in conditions
occurs, a break-through. The hexagram is linked with the third month
[April-May].

THE JUDGMENT

BREAK-THROUGH.
One must resolutely make the matter known
At the court of the king.
It must be announced truthfully. Danger.
It is necessary to notify one's own city.
It does not further to resort to arms.
It furthers one to undertake something.


Even if only one inferior man is occupying a ruling position in a city, he is
able to oppress superior men. Even a single passion still lurking in the heart
has power to obscure reason. Passion and reason cannot exist side by side-
therefore fight without quarter is necessary if the good is to prevail.
In a resolute struggle of the good against evil, there are, however, definite
rules that must not be disregarded, if it is to succeed. First, resolution must be
based on a union of strength and friendliness. Second, a compromise with
evil is not possible; evil must under all circumstances be openly discredited.
Nor must our own passions and shortcomings be glossed over. Third, the
struggle must not be carried on directly by force. If evil is branded, it thinks of
weapons, and if we do it the favor of fighting against it blow for blow, we lose
in the end because thus we ourselves get entangled in hatred and passion.
Therefore it is important to begin at home, to be on guard in our own persons
against the faults we have branded. In this way, finding no opponent, the
sharp edges of the weapons of evil becomes dulled. For the same reasons we
should not combat our own faults directly. As long as we wrestle with them,
they continue victorious. Finally, the best way to fight evil is to make
energetic progress in the good.

THE IMAGE

The lake has risen up to heaven:
The image of BREAK-THROUGH.
Thus the superior man
Dispenses riches downward
And refrains from resting on his virtue.


When the water of a lake has risen up to heaven, there is reason to fear a
cloudburst. Taking this as a warning, the superior man forestalls a violent
collapse. If a man were to pile up riches for himself alone, without
considering others, he would certainly experience a collapse. For all gathering is followed by dispersion.
Therefore the superior man begins to distribute while he is accumulating. In
the same way, in developing his character he takes care not to become
hardened in obstinacy but to remain receptive to impressions by help of strict
and continuous self-examination.
This book is connecting into something wise, and there is a specific formula of unlikely behavior that gets you right to an appropriate answer. It's uncanny. Unlikely. There are 64 possible sections of the book, and yet in this last cast, a highly improbable coin toss took me to a section that in addition to answernig my question, contained an admonishment for me:
Quote:
If a man were to pile up riches for himself alone, without
considering others, he would certainly experience a collapse. For all gathering is followed by dispersion.
Therefore the superior man begins to distribute while he is accumulating.
Remember what I started out saying in this thread? "Why should I tell you?" I was wrong to start on that path, and I will continue to try to impart what I know. In a quiet, anonymous messageboard format, though!


Runes- My parents weren't into that sort of thing, and at the age I'm talking about, I hadn't read much fantasy yet, either, not even Tolkien. Nor had I been exposed to any Celtic influences. I lived in the backwoods of the Ozarks. Cultural influences from outside were few and far between.

About Ted Owens, if you read the book, you can see all the proofs that were offered: predictions published in newspapers, televised incidents as well. IF the author is legit, and it looks like most of his proofs could be looked up in public records, then Ted Owens was a bona fide phenomenon. Scary, even. I don't agree with all his ideas, and think his methods of visualization that accomplished these deeds were downright silly, but they seemed to work for him. That book is a collection of the sorts of proofs you've been asking for.

And, if you read it, I ask that you give consideration to the fact that when you see unnatural cloud formations-- that maybe, just maybe-- they might be there because you want them to be. That yes, you might have caused that weird cloud to form in just such a way.

Today's Unnatural Event:
We sell hay. One of our neighbors buys from us, and she paid for a 500 bales in the fall but hadn't picked any up more since September. This morning about 9:30, my husband wondered aloud, "I wonder when Rosy is going to get some of that hay?" "We ought to move the tractor out of there, so she can get to it (the hay) when we are gone." We dropped the subject, but it was the first time we've spoken about it all winter. Two hours later, she called and asked if we could bring her some hay today.

Of all the days since when she paid for it, 4 months worth, about 120 days, we spoke of the issue and she called within 2 hours. I figure she either felt us talking about her, or we felt her thinking about the hay- or talking to someone else about the issue. She didn't call right then because no one calls anyone that early on a Saturday morning- at least not around here!

Rosy is a friend, but not a close one. We see her a couple of times a year, mostly in the context of buying hay.

Stuff like this happens all the time nowadays. You can call it coincidence, but the circumstances are pushing the bounds of probability.

_________________


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 12 Jan , 2008 11:59 pm
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Quote:
OK, today I did an I Ching reading. The question I put was "How could I convince Iavas that the I Ching effect is real?

I threw the three coins, six times and noted the fall each time. The first five times I got 2 tails and a head, which in itself is pretty improbable. You'd have to get someone who understands statistics to figure the odds on that.
The odds are not anything incredible: (3/8)^5 ~ 1 in 135
Quote:
This book is connecting into something wise, and there is a specific formula of unlikely behavior that gets you right to an appropriate answer. It's uncanny. Unlikely. There are 64 possible sections of the book, and yet in this last cast, a highly improbable coin toss took me to a section that in addition to answernig my question, contained an admonishment for me:
I browsed a few of the other 64 sections at random and nearly all of them could contain messages that could be made to apply to the same situation. It's just like horoscopes, like I said before. It's kept vague enough that you can almost always see something relevant.
Quote:
Runes- My parents weren't into that sort of thing, and at the age I'm talking about, I hadn't read much fantasy yet, either, not even Tolkien. Nor had I been exposed to any Celtic influences. I lived in the backwoods of the Ozarks. Cultural influences from outside were few and far between.
I just don't find this that remarkable, sorry. Either you picked it up subconsciously (no one can remember everything they saw as a kid), or through the limited number of shapes available you happened to match a few.
Quote:
About Ted Owens, if you read the book, you can see all the proofs that were offered: predictions published in newspapers, televised incidents as well. IF the author is legit, and it looks like most of his proofs could be looked up in public records, then Ted Owens was a bona fide phenomenon. Scary, even. I don't agree with all his ideas, and think his methods of visualization that accomplished these deeds were downright silly, but they seemed to work for him. That book is a collection of the sorts of proofs you've been asking for.
Clearly there are people through history who have had some strange gifts. I am going to see if science can catch up first before turning to mysticism - the human brain may simply have more abilities than previously thought.
Quote:
Today's Unnatural Event:
We sell hay. One of our neighbors buys from us, and she paid for a 500 bales in the fall but hadn't picked any up more since September. This morning about 9:30, my husband wondered aloud, "I wonder when Rosy is going to get some of that hay?" "We ought to move the tractor out of there, so she can get to it (the hay) when we are gone." We dropped the subject, but it was the first time we've spoken about it all winter. Two hours later, she called and asked if we could bring her some hay today.

Of all the days since when she paid for it, 4 months worth, about 120 days, we spoke of the issue and she called within 2 hours. I figure she either felt us talking about her, or we felt her thinking about the hay- or talking to someone else about the issue. She didn't call right then because no one calls anyone that early on a Saturday morning- at least not around here!

Rosy is a friend, but not a close one. We see her a couple of times a year, mostly in the context of buying hay.

Stuff like this happens all the time nowadays. You can call it coincidence, but the circumstances are pushing the bounds of probability.
How many other parts of your daily conversation don't lead to a coincidence occuring? I believe I started a Manwe thread on coincidences once.. might see if it's still around..

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Estel
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 13 Jan , 2008 12:35 pm
Pure Kitsch Flavor
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:47 pm
Location: London
 
The thing is Iavas, if it doesn't hurt anyone and it helps a person become stronger in themselves, have more self-confidence, etc etc, why do you have to convince a person that their faith is somehow wrong. Why should they have to justify it?

When Steve and I first got together I couldn't talk to him about religion at all because he was quite scathing of people who believed in something. I didn't understand what seemed like anger towards people who had beliefs and I refused to listen to him. It wasn't because I didn't believe or disbelive what he was saying, no. It was because I didn't see the point in being so disparaging of something that wasn't hurting anyone. However, if someone attacked Steve's atheism as strongly as others attack people's religions, he would respond just as strongly, if not more so, against that than he does against religion itself. Now I can talk to Steve about religion/faith/spirituality because, over the years, his conversations on the subject have gentled in tone. That doesn't mean I think his beliefs have weakened.

Mariahobbit isn't hurting anyone with her beliefs. She has tried to tell you what and why she believes and what her justifications for her faith are. She's answered the questions you asked, which was the point of this thread according to the first post.

To go on and on saying that she's wrong, or that anyone else is wrong for their faith.... It isn't kind, and it supposedly was not the reason for this thread. It's one thing to say why a faith/religion/spirituality is wrong for you, but it's another thing to say that it's wrong altogether.

Science is important, yes. But science has yet to prove or disprove the existence of a god-like being, and it is almost entirely founded on theories, not facts. Hell, I studied archaeology, a science entirely founded on evolution, yet one of the most important things emphasized by my professors was that evolution is a theory, not a fact.

You have been more gentle in this thread than other threads I've seen you post in in the past, however, please remember that you are attacking and trying to disprove faiths/religions/spiritualities that are at the core of who people are. Try to disprove it gently if you must, and if the person doesn't agree with you, please don't go after their belief again and again until they feel forced to leave the thread. That's no different than a hardcore Christian telling someone they're going to go to hell for not believing the right thing.

Of course, if the faith/religion/spirituality is hurting people other than the believers - hurting people who don't want to be hurt - then attack it all you want, and I'll join you. A faith that causes harm to others should be disproved, if only to save more people from being harmed.

Leaving people to their faith if it helps them and doesn't hurt anyone else is not difficult.


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 13 Jan , 2008 1:36 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
Iavas,

Just following on from Estel...

From the age of 12 I firmly believed that all faiths, whether it be religion, horoscopes, crystals, take your pick, was just a trick of the mind - a coping mechanism for the mundaneness, ennui and meanness of life; a way to cope with one's own mortality. It was a trick so obviously built on sand and pity the idiot who couldn't step back and see it for what it was. Faith was a necessary social glue in the early days but now held us back from developing as a society. Stand up on your own two feet, weaklings! Faith was two-fold: it was the dark matter of the soul, and also the X that explained what we had not yet understood in how the world worked.

Yep, that was me, aged 12 onwards. As time went on I have come to realise that my belief was exactly that: a faith in itself - albeit the one that required less rationalisation and justification when challenged. I realised I was equivalent to what I despised most - an evangelist so convinced of his own moral authority and desperate to spread the Truth and convert people to my belief.

I have managed, luckily, to step off my soapbox after re-reading how I was posting in MH's threads. Quite vituperous stuff, really.

Faith must always be challenged. Of course. The fact that most people in the world have the same faith of their parents demands it. It is when one's faith impinges on another's life, when one is told how to live their life by another as I used to do and particularly those faiths that demand persecution of the unbeliever, when I will still slap them down.

Faith must always be challenged, but it must be challenged gently and not in a Manwe way as I used to do. The challenge can often strengthen one's own convictions.

All of us have to go through the following thought process in life (and in fact should be revisited from time to time):

1 There are insufficient grounds on which to support a belief and we must therefore admit that the object of faith is objectively uncertain.

2 To decide against most beliefs is to risk the loss of an eternal happiness, while the decision to believe must be made without the benefit of any objective assurances.

3 Belief confronts the individual with an option that cannot be decided on theoretical grounds, but requires a practical decision that takes the individual’s interest into account.

4 It is a forced decision in the sense that to be indifferent, to suspend judgment, is practically equivalent to deciding in the negative.

Somewhat Pascalesque, I suppose, in its approach.

Such a challenge can help in this process.

However, I said the challenge should be done gently because we are talking faith here. Ultimately, faith cannot be justified (the purpose of this thread) - it can only be questioned. If I cannot *prove* what I believe, I expect no one else to be able to do the same.

So where am I now in my view of beliefs?

Perhaps all faiths are indeed a trick of the mind. But get this: all human life, all human life experiences, are filtered through a state of mind. If someone's state of mind doesn't affect me, or is attempted to be pushed onto me, then I'm glad it works for them.

Last edited by Lidless on Mon 14 Jan , 2008 10:00 am, edited 2 times in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
jewelsong
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 13 Jan , 2008 2:58 pm
Just keep singin'!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1729
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 9:26 pm
Location: UK
 
Steve....that's the kind of post that is worthy of you. I've missed your more serious and thoughtful posting style and I hope to see a bit more of it again.

;)


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 13 Jan , 2008 4:25 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5176
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Briefly, coming out of my b77 semi-retirement to say that was the best post that I have read from you in a long, long time, Lidless. It made me very happy to see it.


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 13 Jan , 2008 5:02 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
Well I knew it would appeal to revisionists at least: it had a character arc.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
democritus
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 13 Jan , 2008 8:18 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri 11 Feb , 2005 10:19 am
Location: the vortex of complacency and bad service
 
My five pence...

I consider all organised religion to be bunkum, including the kind of new age stuff that Maria was outlining.

However... and it's a big however... this is just what I believe based on everything I know. I could be wrong... but I really don't believe I am.

Now the question I have for Iavas as an Atheist and a Humanist is this: does it really matter what Maria believes so long as it (A) does not actively harm her or anyone else for that matter and (B) she does not seek to impose it on anyone else but just shares her views with us and leaves it at that?

Over the years I have stopped trying to de-convert people unless they try to convert me in an aggressive way and then I highlight and subject their faith to all of my doubt and scepticism based on whats the facts tell us (facts provided not only be science, but also history, anthropology, geography, psychology, sociology etc).

Science has most of the answers IMO, including the validity of the various metaphysical and epistemological truth claims that all these religions make. But science does not have all the answers and nor does it claim to (despite accusations that state other wise), in such a situation we are best to once again promote secularism, separation of church and state, and religious and non-religious pluralism as the best way to order our society, and to challenge any movement to promote the various faiths or non-faiths into the public and political realm at the expense of the others.

Iavas... you also asked why do believers believe what they believe... I would say that it is primarily psychological, with important historical, biological and sociological factors thrown in. I can answer for myself that when I believed at school it was (a) because it had been installed in me as a child and people I loved and respected believed in it too, and (b) that belief gave me hope and optimism and a sense of comfort when my grandparents died (though I also feared what would happen if I was bad and felt a sense of guilt at the naughty things I did when I thought that my grandparents might be looking down on me). As I gradually became a very informed Atheist and then Humanist those feelings remained the same but came from different sources. I also found that if anything I became more moral, not less, as my beliefs changed, something that was contrary to the teachings of the Catholic school I attended (though I was never a Catholic).

This indicates to me that religion is a perfectably understandable and hard-wired psychological response to the human condition as we find it. And it is a real humbug who wants to dismiss entirely what gives people hope, joy, and comfort. However just because it is an understandable human invention, does not mean that we should give any of it any quarter when it is used to deny or obfusicate the truth, and indeed I don't give it any quarter in this area.


Top
Profile Quote
democritus
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 13 Jan , 2008 8:19 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri 11 Feb , 2005 10:19 am
Location: the vortex of complacency and bad service
 
DP


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 13 Jan , 2008 8:44 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
I just want to point out that, even though Demo is an Antipodean, I consider myself his half-brother in this respect.

The double-posting I mean, not that blathering on in the earlier post.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Lily Rose
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 3:10 am
stranded in dreamland
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1757
Joined: Sat 30 Oct , 2004 3:03 am
Location: Feet firmly planted on Cloud Nine
 
I used to be a Christian. After much soul-searching and research over a number of years, I have rejected it, along with all other organized religions, as nonsense.
I, however, respect that other people need their religion for whatever reason, and see no need to belittle someone else's beliefs or try to disprove them.
I have not discounted the existence of God, though I do not believe that he or she created this world. I just can't fathom why a perfectly loving God would create something as imperfect as this planet.

_________________

I don't have faith in faith
I don't believe in belief
You can call me faithless
I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that's faith enough for me


Top
Profile Quote
jadeval
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 4:09 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu 29 Nov , 2007 9:47 pm
Location: Ecotopia
 
It is possible that things like the I Ching and/or astrology could be deeper than we tend to think. I don't believe in astrology in the popular sense (i.e. predictions), but after reading C.G. Jung's Synchronicity about 6 months ago I had to wonder whether there might be some kind of philosophical underpinnings for such traditions. I believe synchronicity could be described as something similar to a philosophical "tweaking" of our standard notions of causality.... so that there are certain practices or events which, while not science in our modern sense, can be explained as "synchronous" in the sense that they are connected but without any causal connections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

This is also interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Con ... ss_Project

_________________

"Every determination is a negation." -Spinoza


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 4 of 6  [ 114 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Jump to: