A****** is a bad word?

[lightgigantic]

Yet this requires that one already believes in God even prior to perceiving God.

in the same way, one is required to believe in the president before coming into line with his needs, interests and concerns

actually all types of knowledge require some degree of faith (or induction)

that however doesn't mean that faith is the constant standard for complete knowledge

 

[iceaura]

actually all types of knowledge require some degree of faith (or induction)

Is anyone else seeing a parallel here between these various uses of "faith" and the various uses of the word "energy" ?

Clearly the various uses of "faith" here cannot be invoking the same, singular, meaning. No sense in allowing such use, misuse, abuse, and metaphorical emnployment to rail a discussion.

I don't think I "believe in" the President, and if someone came up to me and said I had to "believe in" the President to come into line with certain needs, interests, and concerns allegedly possessed by him, I would see no reason to take that kind of talk seriously.

 

[Frud11]

An empirical experience of something which can't be thought about is paradoxical, but not impossible

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean here

I'm sort of saying that, for example: hearing, is only possible because of what happens in various parts of your brain, ultimately in the auditory centres, part of the cortex. There's quite a lot that happens before it does, though. And it starts when specialised neurons in the inner ear start firing.

So when do "you" think about it? When does it "become" empirical.
That's what I was getting at with saying it's an expansion, also. The overall activity is thermodynamical, but also a kind of information processing, or algorithmic activity; it's all very organised and finely tuned, so you can hear the slightest sound. But which part of "you" is the part that "recognises" a sound?

The other angle is this: in yoga traditions there's meant to be inner sound. Could this be the experience, or the ability to "tune in" to the activity in your own say, inner ear, or of the background activity. I don't see why this would be like thermodynamic, chaotic noise, because the brain is organised, there are waves of activity, mathematical signal processing-type activity.

There's a medical condition called tinnitus, in which people describe hearing an annoying ringing or buzzing "noise"; this could be because they haven't "trained" themselves how to hear it.

 

[greenberg]

So when do "you" think about it?

Moreover, when do "you" know you have faith in God?

 

[greenberg]

in the same way, one is required to believe in the president before coming into line with his needs, interests and concerns

The question for me is - Why (on the grounds of what motivation) would one want to come into line with God's needs, interests and concerns?

 

[lightgigantic]

Is anyone else seeing a parallel here between these various uses of "faith" and the various uses of the word "energy" ?

Clearly the various uses of "faith" here cannot be invoking the same, singular, meaning. No sense in allowing such use, misuse, abuse, and metaphorical emnployment to rail a discussion.

I don't think I "believe in" the President, and if someone came up to me and said I had to "believe in" the President to come into line with certain needs, interests, and concerns allegedly possessed by him, I would see no reason to take that kind of talk seriously.

well we were talking specifically about issues of direct perception ... especially in regard to discerning reality

but yeah, in a general sense, faith ... belief .. throws a wide net

 

[lightgigantic]

The question for me is - Why (on the grounds of what motivation) would one want to come into line with God's needs, interests and concerns?

when you perceive some benefit in making such a change

Just like one might come in line with the presidents needs, interests and concerns when they perceive some benefit

(which approaches the question - what entails actual benefit?)

 

[Frud11]

Moreover, when do "you" know you have faith in God?

That might happen when I see hear taste and feel "God", just as I experience anything when I'm awake. But can I be sure about this?
Maybe I already am, but I'm busy thinking about why, or whether I can be, or trying to hear something, instead of just listening...

 

[greenberg]

(which approaches the question - what entails actual benefit?)

Exactly.

And trying to answer such a question can get insanely complicated.

 

[lightgigantic]

Exactly.

And trying to answer such a question can get insanely complicated.

probably because the issue of what entails "the self" (the thing we are trying to benefit) can be tough going

 

[Michael]

So again, any consensus in a word for those who do not believe in God?

Are we looking for a word to describe someone who does not believe in Gods or someone who did not believe that Mohammad was a Prophet and didn`t believe in his God?

 

[Frud11]

"Do not believe in", and "do not believe", are slightly different semantics.

 

[Michael]

Who are the Unbelievers referred to in sura109 - only atheists or are polytheists also unbelievers?

 

[Frud11]

I, er, believe it means any who don't believe what it (the prophet's teachings) says, or don't convert to Islam, therefore. Sic, thus. Quom et quam.

P.S. Not declaring Ceasar the Emperor and new ruler (faith unto), by any conquered people usually meant bad news.

 

[greenberg]

"Do not believe in", and "do not believe", are slightly different semantics.

Not only slightly!

In fact, much of the atheism vs. theism discussion actually revolves around the semantics of the phrases "to believe" and "to believe in". Yet these differences are rarely worked out by either side.

But working out those differences can become so complex that the whole thing becomes pointless to pursue any further ...

 

[greenberg]

probably because the issue of what entails "the self" (the thing we are trying to benefit) can be tough going

Absolutely.

Most discussions about God only make sense as long as the participants tacitly agree to a particular objectivist/realist notion of perception.
Without that, and introducing constructivist or relativist notions of perception, the issue of God becomes moot (as do most others).


In a way, some theisms are promulgating the idea that naive realism or objectivism are the only correct theories of perception. And in order to believe in God, one must accept the correctness of those theories first, or it is impossible to believe in God (and probably most other things).

 

[Gustav]

ja
for instance, what does god signify to a hindu?

 

[Frud11]

what does god signify to a hindu?

Hinduism is, in its modern form, a pantheism that represents a unification at the same time, in the concepts of monotheism as individual self -a part of god or godhood, and an almighty or "approachable" one. A single "Truth". This is particularly strong in the Sikh tradition(s).

There are thousands of individual gods, and each person is also a god, and the pantheism is a single theism -this is why there are so many gurus and holy teachers, all the different teachings are the "same", even when a group of followers splits into different groups; also any external belief (Christianity) tends to become absorbed this way, as another of the (uncountable) representations of the ways of the One. All roads lead up the same mountain, or whatever.

P.S. There's a tradition that worships Lord Issu in India.
P.P.S. The Trinity of Christian faith has a parallel with the Hindu Creator-Sustainer-Destroyer one. The last, is more a recycler, or restarter, and there is no destruction without creation. Also both reflect, in a way, the cosmological mass/energy symmetry, with spatiality (dispersal) as #3. So you could say the creator destroyer relation applies to matter, or substance being destroyed (and energy created), and its inverse. The sustainer part is the (extent and contents of the) cosmos itself, which exists because of the creator of energy, and its opposite character. A symmetry as both a theistic and a cosmic idea.

 

[lightgigantic]

Absolutely.

Most discussions about God only make sense as long as the participants tacitly agree to a particular objectivist/realist notion of perception.
Without that, and introducing constructivist or relativist notions of perception, the issue of God becomes moot (as do most others).


In a way, some theisms are promulgating the idea that naive realism or objectivism are the only correct theories of perception. And in order to believe in God, one must accept the correctness of those theories first, or it is impossible to believe in God (and probably most other things).

its not clear how knowledge can be approached while bypassing theory

for instance if you look at Gustav's Q

ja
for instance, what does god signify to a hindu?

you get a variety of answers due to a variety of theories (undifferentiated monism, purified oneness, dualism, etc etc) indicating a variety of practices

 

[greenberg]

its not clear how knowledge can be approached while bypassing theory

Of course. The issue in theist discussion is that some theories are given credence, while others are dismissed.
But accepting a particular theory of perception will shape the knowledge that we gain by using this theory, and had we not used that theory, we would poissibly gain some different knowledge.