For James R. 'The Honest Theist'.

[wynn]

and how is this different from, say, the run of the mill people relying on a doctor, lawyer, car mechanic or any other professional?

My eternal life, free will, sanity, happiness are not at stake when it comes to relying on doctors etc.
Nor do these professionals expect or need my complete submission.

But religious/spiritual guides, instructors and leaders do.


The responsibility of those who claim to know what is best for us, spiritually, eternally,
have an incomparably greater responsibility than doctors, lawyers, mechanics, etc.

We have a reasonable right to expect to be protected by authorities that tell us they know what is best for us.

We have a reasonable right to expect to that the authorities that tell us they know what is best for us will have some basic respect for us, and not demand us to become mindless drones in order to make "spiritual progress".

We have a reasonable right to expect that the authorities that tell us they know what is best for us will not claim the caveat emptor and lay the whole responsibility for our spiritual development on us, saying that if we failed, it was entirely our fault, never theirs.


Spirituality is not simply a business, like medicine, law or repairing cars.
And you are a criminal for comparing the two, as if the principles were all the same.

 

[wynn]

Signal:

phlogistician, for one, is a prime example on the other side of the coin. He's an atheist who is arrogant enough to say that he can dismiss all gods without even knowing what a god is. Ask him whether he has "the superior view on things" and I'm sure he'll tell you he does.

And look at his reactions when the going gets tough.

I don't approve of Phlogistician's attitude, but I emphatize with it.

Many theists just don't take reponsibility for what they preach, but they nonetheless expect to be given full trust and respect.

This has got to stop.

 

[Search & Destroy]

1. God requires faith,
[faith is gained by spiritual apprehension rather than proof]

2. Faith is an admitted suspension of logic,
[as in both faith and logic occupy different incompatible systems]

3. Blatant illogicality is a dishonest act.
[meaning that by using invalid reasoning, one is acting in an untrustworthy way]

Maybe this is phlogistician's point?

so if you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, that's a suspension of logic?

It's an interesting question, I'm not sure why the embarrassed smiley?

In my previous post I restricted my definition to only faith in spiritual matters. Your question is introducing a new concept of faith, one which I explicitly did not intend.

Mine was: Faith by spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Yours is: Complete trust of something.

To address your usage of the word -

I do have complete trust the sun will rise tomorrow. For astrophysics, personal experience, testimonies, and historic records, all add strong evidence in its favor. Right now the setting sun indicates all is normal. This is all very logical, no?

 

[lightgigantic]

My eternal life, free will, sanity, happiness are not at stake when it comes to relying on doctors etc.

its not difficult to imagine a scenario where one's sanity or happiness is dependent on a car mechanic.

Nor do these professionals expect or need my complete submission.

neither do saintly people

But religious/spiritual guides, instructors and leaders do.

its quite simple.

If you don't accept a car mechanic (like say a person who hates car mechanics of all creeds) , you don't receive the benefit of their services

The responsibility of those who claim to know what is best for us, spiritually, eternally,
have an incomparably greater responsibility than doctors, lawyers, mechanics, etc.

agreed

But I am not sure why the gravity of the services performed suddenly renders one incapable of negotiating the field of professionals.

We have a reasonable right to expect to be protected by authorities that tell us they know what is best for us.

the same duty of care extends to all professionals

We have a reasonable right to expect to that the authorities that tell us they know what is best for us will have some basic respect for us, and not demand us to become mindless drones in order to make "spiritual progress".

I guess the beginning of such reasoning is grading candidates from kannistha to madhyama ... which is what we tend to do when grading the services of any potential professional

We have a reasonable right to expect that the authorities that tell us they know what is best for us will not claim the caveat emptor and lay the whole responsibility for our spiritual development on us, saying that if we failed, it was entirely our fault, never theirs.

on what grounds do you think it might be reasonable to accept responsibility for personal failure?
Or do you think that it all cases the prospective follower of advice is always faultless?

Spirituality is not simply a business, like medicine, law or repairing cars.
And you are a criminal for comparing the two, as if the principles were all the same.

the same general principles apply - if we are affected by some problem we not only seek advice on how to solve it but we bring a host of tools with us to determine who and what is the best candidate - and even after making the decision (if one at all makes a decision) there are further issues on how we apply the solution.

 

[lightgigantic]

It's an interesting question, I'm not sure why the embarrassed smiley?

In my previous post I restricted my definition to only faith in spiritual matters. Your question is introducing a new concept of faith, one which I explicitly did not intend.

Mine was: Faith by spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Yours is: Complete trust of something.

To address your usage of the word -

I do have complete trust the sun will rise tomorrow. For astrophysics, personal experience, testimonies, and historic records, all add strong evidence in its favor. Right now the setting sun indicates all is normal. This is all very logical, no?

I think a discussion on how "material" apprehension (interesting choice of words, but we will let it ride for the sake of argument) somehow distinguishes itself as superior from "spiritual" apprehension is simply a discussion of particular values that effectively work in particular scenarios (as opposed to superior values that work in all scenarios)

 

[Search & Destroy]

I think a discussion on how "material" apprehension (interesting choice of words, but we will let it ride for the sake of argument) somehow distinguishes itself as superior from "spiritual" apprehension is simply a discussion of particular values that effectively work in particular scenarios (as opposed to superior values that work in all scenarios)

Spiritual apprehension is not a domain of logic, it is one of emotion & feeling. For example Zen Buddhists use koans as tools to 'break logic' and find enlightenment, Turkish use dance, Amazonian tribes with drug brews, and Indian mystics have thousands of different ways... but none are logical. Spiritual moments are characterized by feelings and emotions.

The valid inferences of logic follow thought, not emotion. In this way the key difference between material and spiritual apprehension is that the former is in the domain of logic, while the other is not.

One is only 'superior' in its use of logic, but neither is superior for anything else I am concerned with at the moment.

 

[SciWriter]

as I said, aside from your notions about theism being purely a discipline of speculation, if you want to write off speculation as an act of dishonesty, you have just given the boot to about 60% of science.

:shrug:

Good; then when the science is ready enough then it will pass muster (or not), and it they claim it as truth before that then they are dishonest, too.

 

[Search & Destroy]

Only if you think saintliness/enlightenment doesn't require skills

Actually I interpreted Signal as talking to 'you theists', meaning a group you are a member of specifically,

He said:

We, the run-of-the-mill people, simply need to rely on theists like yourself. And we have to take for granted that you know your business and that you are right.

And then, when the going gets tough, you just take the "caveat emptor" attitude, renouncing any and all responsibility.

You asked:

and how is this different from, say, the run of the mill people relying on a doctor, lawyer, car mechanic or any other professional?

I thought the fourth word "this" was pointing to the group of theists you are a member of specifically (Assuming you are not a Saint or Buddha) and comparing them to professionals.

That's why I said ordinary theists don't have skills, (or I should say very developed skills) that professionals have.

Anyway to the point - in the case of an Enlightened monk, or Saint, I do concur that they have skills, and that those skills make them obviously acceptable for consultation.

 

[lightgigantic]

Good; then when the science is ready enough then it will pass muster (or not), and it they claim it as truth before that then they are dishonest, too.

isn't that the point of speculation?
it doesn't pass the point of muster?

I mean how much of science takes that step to be defined as "truth"?

 

[SciWriter]

It is not speculation that is dishonest; it is dishonest to portray it as fact and truth.

 

[NMSquirrel]

You theists are the ones coming forward as supposedly having the superior view on things, and that everyone should bend to your will. Yes, bend to your will, because on our own, it's not like we can know what scriptures want or mean. We, the run-of-the-mill people, simply need to rely on theists like yourself. And we have to take for granted that you know your business and that you are right.

not here on sciforums.

Maybe this is phlogistician's point?

i think phlo's point is just to try and hate.

 

[James R]

1. God requires faith,
[faith is gained by spiritual apprehension rather than proof]

Faith means having belief and confidence in something that you can't absolutely prove. It doesn't have to be spiritual.

2. Faith is an admitted suspension of logic,
[as in both faith and logic occupy different incompatible systems]

Not really. It is a leap from purely deductive logic, but it follows almost automatically from inductive logic.

3. Blatant illogicality is a dishonest act.

You couldn't be more wrong. People can be blatantly illogical and not even realise it. That hardly makes them dishonest.

Maybe this is phlogistician's point?

I think phlog has more of a prejudice than a point.

 

[Search & Destroy]

Faith means having belief and confidence in something that you can't absolutely prove. It doesn't have to be spiritual.

I specifically am talking about spiritual faith, not all faith. The faith I'm talking about must be spiritual.

Not really. It is a leap from purely deductive logic, but it follows almost automatically from inductive logic.

I don't think it can be valid inductive logic. I respectfully ask for 2 premises to support the conclusion that 'God exists', to back up your claim.

You couldn't be more wrong. People can be blatantly illogical and not even realise it. That hardly makes them dishonest.

My choice of the word 'blatant' was not perfect. I want to change the word to - 'Deliberate illogicality'. That way they must realize what they are doing, and it does make them dishonest (untrustworthy).

I think phlog has more of a prejudice than a point.

[/quote]
probably

 

[wynn]

not here on sciforums.

Of course here at Sciforums, especially here.

 

[wynn]

One more thing to this:

Signal:

phlogistician, for one, is a prime example on the other side of the coin. He's an atheist who is arrogant enough to say that he can dismiss all gods without even knowing what a god is. Ask him whether he has "the superior view on things" and I'm sure he'll tell you he does.

And look at his reactions when the going gets tough.

You are PRETENDING to be a theist in this thread.

Your doing so suggests that you believe that pretending to be a theist is as good as actually being one.

Why Phlogistician agreed to this deal, I do not know, but you both set yourself up for a ruse. No wonder emotions are running high.

 

[wynn]

its not difficult to imagine a scenario where one's sanity or happiness is dependent on a car mechanic.

That is worldly.
One may have a financial, political, marital, health, academic, and many other crises, but none of them is as severe, as all-pervasive as a spiritual crisis.

Nor do these professionals expect or need my complete submission.

neither do saintly people

Of course they do. This is what distinguishes them from worldly professionals.

The responsibility of those who claim to know what is best for us, spiritually, eternally,
have an incomparably greater responsibility than doctors, lawyers, mechanics, etc.

agreed

And yet when we fail, spiritually, those spiritual professionals blame it all on us.

But I am not sure why the gravity of the services performed suddenly renders one incapable of negotiating the field of professionals.

Given that spirituality encompasses and informs all the other aspects of a person's life, and the run-of-the-mill person is considered categorically inept and is expected to consider themselves categorically inept, there is no room for any kind of negotiation.

In fact, attempts at negotiation are viewed as offensive by spiritual professionals.

We have a reasonable right to expect to be protected by authorities that tell us they know what is best for us.

the same duty of care extends to all professionals

Clearly not. People who are professionals in the field of spirituality like to find explanations and justifications for any perceived lack of care.
"You're just not advanced enough to see that I, your guru, care about you."
"It's just your jaundice."
"I was teaching you detachment."
"If you love me, I will love you."

I guess the beginning of such reasoning is grading candidates from kannistha to madhyama ... which is what we tend to do when grading the services of any potential professional

And yet when it comes to spirituality, run-of-the-mill people are disqualified from any such grading from the onset and on principle.

Only an uttama can recognize an uttama, goes the maxim.

We get told, "Who are you to judge?!"

on what grounds do you think it might be reasonable to accept responsibility for personal failure?

Indeed. It's everyone against everyone, right?
Just because it is spirituality, it is no less a struggle for survival, the survival of the fittest. Just like in the material life, spirituality is all the same: one big fight for survival.

Or do you think that it all cases the prospective follower of advice is always faultless?

I was never suggesting that.

I would just think that those who claim to know what is best for us would actually care a bit, ask some questions, see where the person actually is at. Instead they, like a mechanical oracle, utter advice and one has to follow it, or perish, regardless whether one understands it or not.

Apparently, spirituality is for those who are spiritually advanced, rich and influential.
Everyone else should beware, because they will likely get screwed. In the name of God!

the same general principles apply - if we are affected by some problem we not only seek advice on how to solve it but we bring a host of tools with us to determine who and what is the best candidate - and even after making the decision (if one at all makes a decision) there are further issues on how we apply the solution.

And yet when a run-of-the-mill person does so, then all the self-declared spiritual authorities scoff at them for being materialists, rascals, karmis, worthless and so on.

 

[wynn]

- 'Deliberate illogicality'. That way they must realize what they are doing, and it does make them dishonest (untrustworthy).

Then you need to read up on Ariely's work:

We're All Predictably Irrational

The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home

Predictably Irrational, Revised and Expanded Edition: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions

 

[James R]

Signal:

You are PRETENDING to be a theist in this thread.

Your doing so suggests that you believe that pretending to be a theist is as good as actually being one.

No. If you read the start of the thread, you'll note that I said I used to be a theist.

I may not be "as good as" a theist, but I am well equipped to argue from a theistic point of view. It's not like I never thought about the issues before. It's not like theists in general aren't aware of the usual arguments against God, or haven't thought about them, or haven't come up with a solution that satisfies them.

phlogistician is one example of an atheist who really only has a superficial understanding of why people are theists, and practically no understanding of the arguments in support of theism. I am attempting to introduce him to some rational arguments for theism.

The assumption that theists are stupid, mindless morons who are incapable of logical thought is itself a stupid and mindless assumption. So is the assumption that theists are general dishonest. I am seeking to challenge those assumptions in this thread. And though I may not be a theist, I do honestly believe that not all theists are stupid, mindless sheep willing to believe anything. And I do honestly believe that there are some great thinkers who happen to be theists.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Of course here at Sciforums, especially here.

show me.

You theists are the ones coming forward as supposedly having the superior view on things, and that everyone should bend to your will. Yes, bend to your will, because on our own, it's not like we can know what scriptures want or mean. We, the run-of-the-mill people, simply need to rely on theists like yourself. And we have to take for granted that you know your business and that you are right.

and more precisely show me where theist do it more than atheist..

how many atheist start their posts with 'your wrong'? or thats BS..this is an attempt to take the 'high ground' as you put it, and try's to establish themselves as an authority over the matter (works both ways)

i think its more projection than anything..atheist want so bad to make theist wrong, that they often are guilty of what they accuse the theist of doing.(and theist should consider how much of this we are doing.)

 

[wynn]

No. If you read the start of the thread, you'll note that I said I used to be a theist.

I may not be "as good as" a theist, but I am well equipped to argue from a theistic point of view.

Don't you think that it makes a categorical difference whether a person really stands behind their arguments or not?

It's not like theists in general aren't aware of the usual arguments against God, or haven't thought about them, or haven't come up with a solution that satisfies them.

But how can any theistic solution satisfy a pretender??

phlogistician is one example of an atheist who really only has a superficial understanding of why people are theists, and practically no understanding of the arguments in support of theism. I am attempting to introduce him to some rational arguments for theism.

I have no understanding why people are theists either, and it seems many theists have no understanding of why they are theists.

The assumption that theists are stupid, mindless morons who are incapable of logical thought is itself a stupid and mindless assumption. So is the assumption that theists are general dishonest. I am seeking to challenge those assumptions in this thread. And though I may not be a theist, I do honestly believe that not all theists are stupid, mindless sheep willing to believe anything. And I do honestly believe that there are some great thinkers who happen to be theists.

Theists have a long history of producing inactionable arguments for theism. Understandably, some people will become upset by that - the more so the more theists claim how important it is to believe in God.
Such upset is perfectly justified.