How can a person be sure that they have made the right decision about God?

[wynn]

the same way as any other issue sof application that promises an outcome - we develop an appropriate level of faith in those who have already applied themselves and inquire from them submissively

How do we (get ourselves to) develop such faith in those people?

Suppose we experience the people who have applied themselves, as cold, distant, unapproachable, or even stuck up.
But we take on faith that they have applied themselves.
Given that we are in dire need, we feel we have to do something. We approach them, as politely as we can, but they treat us like we cannot count to three, and even forego common decency. We take the blame for that on ourselves, thinking that we just aren't good enough to be treated any better.
But we do not exactly feel comfortable about the whole matter, as the paradigm of the interaction is "If I manage to hate, despise, loathe myself enough, think myself worthless, stupid and evil enough, then this highly spiritual person will be nice to me and will reveal what I need to do in order to learn the truth about God" - and this isn't exactly easy to live with.

(Take our communication here as an example: We have all seen that you are perfectly capable to spell and apply other rules of orthography correctly, but often, you do not. In etiquette concerning writing, poor orthography (when a person is otherwise known to be able to do it properly), is considered a deliberate disdain or offense. So I imagine that with your poor orthography you are trying to communicate something, how you feel about the person you are communicating with, and given the standard etiquette, it is not something positive. But I, as well as many others, have accepted you and your attitude.)


So how do we get ourselves to have faith in the people who have applies themselves, given the requirement that we have to believe we are basically evil idiots?

kind of like clarifying butter.

If you don't know what is a waste product (or what it "isn't"), there's no prospect of making ghee

Of course, the logic of this is sound.

But if we first have to agree that we are in illusion to begin with, how can we possibly make any progress from there?

For example, ideally, should we not read scriptures in a mood of "but I am in illusion and don't actually understand any of what I have just heard or read"?
And if not, why not?

but not to the point of "since I can't understand at all it makes no difference whether we read them or not" ... actually generally you would expect one to think like that if they mess up on application (which more often than not, is a fault carried through from the point of theory ..... at least as far as "doable practices are concerned)

Please elaborate on this.

In the above example, where did the person mess up?

It is extremely difficult to do something - read, chant, listen, offer food, etc., if one simultaneously has to believe one is unqualified, worthless, stupid, inept, evil and so on.

I imagine that those who successfully became devotees, either were so good from the onset that they didn't have to think that way of themselves, or that they somehow grit their teeth through that phase, or that they had some other special qualification bestowed upon them.


An unforgettable exchange:

Right. They wilfully rebel, they deliberately deny, they lie, they have no integrity - while all along knowing the Truth.

Has it ever occured to you, Photizo, that if a person believes about themselves that they are liars, or that they are evil, or that they have no integrity, that such a person can never progress beyond blind belief and wishful thinking?

Has it ever occured to you that if a person believes about themselves that they have no integrity, to them, no choice they make, no action they undertake will be of any value, and they will doubt themselves (and everyone else) to their grave? They'll become insane.

No pain no gain as they say..
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1614370&postcount=71

No pain, no gain, right?

If there was no potential to get out of illusion, there would be no point discussing it

I am not disagreeing.

For some reason, you do not take the charge of being in illusion, nor neti-neti to their final logical consequences.

the logical consequence of such things is bewilderment at worst and a vague idea at best.

So what is the alternative to taking the charge of being in illusion nor neti-neti to their final logical consequences ?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Lucysnow, on the other hand, seems to come from the position that this is not the case, but is instead entirely individualistic and private.


Here's a quote for you, Lucy:

And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.

Nice quote but no I didn't think that discussion on god must be discussed privately, I said that a discussion that solely revolves around yourself and your angst and the ensuing online therapy session should be discussed in private. The discussion in general can be discussed by everyone. Its about opening the loop.

What I do believe will happen privately is your revelation on what you are seeking. You mention for much of the thread your discomfort in regards to others and the beliefs they hold and use that as an excuse for you not be able to live by the values you deem correct. I think that's rubbish, a form of scapegoating. It is your responsibility to live a life of integrity no matter what that entails. If it means being a vegetarian be a vegetarian etc. It doesn't mean others have to agree or even give you their blessing, the decision regardless of what others may think will rest on you and you alone. No one can help you with that. I don't ask permission to live my life the way I see fit so I don't understand why you need validation.

As far as your doubt well no one can remove your doubts. That's also something you will have to work on privately.

 

[wynn]

Nice quote but no I didn't think that discussion on god must be discussed privately, I said that a discussion that solely revolves around yourself and your angst and the ensuing online therapy session should be discussed in private. The discussion in general can be discussed by everyone. Its about opening the loop.

I disagree. Whether someone believes in God or not, and in what way, is something that affects everyone else, and as such, it is to some extent a public matter.

If anything, my conversation with Doreen looks like an "online therapy session" because few others joined in.
But the same topic could still be discussed if at least a few more posters participated.

An online forum facilitates simultaenous discussion of several views. Something which in face to face communication would be either practically impossible, or it would take a lot of time and effort to accomplish the same result (as one would have to bring up the same topics in individual conversations with numerous people).

You mention for much of the thread your discomfort in regards to others and the beliefs they hold and use that as an excuse for you not be able to live by the values you deem correct.

This is a misinterpretation of my position.

I think that's rubbish, a form of scapegoating. It is your responsibility to live a life of integrity no matter what that entails. If it means being a vegetarian be a vegetarian etc. It doesn't mean others have to agree or even give you their blessing, the decision regardless of what others may think will rest on you and you alone. No one can help you with that. I don't ask permission to live my life the way I see fit so I don't understand why you need validation.

As far as your doubt well no one can remove your doubts. That's also something you will have to work on privately.

That is what you think.

You also think that you are your body, your thoughts, your emotions, your values, etc.
I do not think a person is those things.

You also think you do not need God. That explains why you see little need to reach out, and feel so much is entirely up to you.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Of course its what I think or I wouldn't have said so.

I find it interesting that you say that I think so, i mean who else's opinion would I hold?

You're free to think what you want.:shrug:

Thread topics are interesting, sitting in on someone's therapy session is like watching paint dry.

That's right I have no need for god, I do see reasons why people reach out to other people, i also reach out to other people but usually in more intimate terms, not say someplace like this unless its something technical. Not everything comes down to me in life, for example I have a trip on the 20th, I intend to take that trip but if something like bad weather cancels the flight then I am at the mercy of the weather. I have choices in life under any given situation and I don't need a holy book or a set of rules designed by some culture or tradition to tell me what those choices are or what choice is right for me. I believe that some people have a psychological need for the god meme and that's fine, I'm not one of them.

By the way what is a person to you? Out of curiosity what are you if stripped of your values, memories, emotions, body etc? I would say dead but what do you think and why? You haven't experienced 'being' without any of those features.

 

[Doreen]

Interesting discussion dynamics!


Doreen seems to come from the position that the discussion of the thread topic should be allowed to take place in front of a public - making the right deicision about God is after all not only the person's own business, but concerns others as well.

Yes, that's a fair quick summation. Especially given the form of this 'public' forum, where it is easy to stop reading posts that irritate one. As opposed to us speaking loudly at a restaurant. If we had gotten into your childhood and your dynamics with your parents or your romantic partner, etc., OK, I can begin to see the therapy accusation. I don't want to say that would have been wrong, but I think I would have shifted to private communication for that kind of thing.

Frankly I cannot see how......

I think that's rubbish, a form of scapegoating. It is your responsibility to live a life of integrity no matter what that entails. If it means being a vegetarian be a vegetarian etc. It doesn't mean others have to agree or even give you their blessing, the decision regardless of what others may think will rest on you and you alone. No one can help you with that. I don't ask permission to live my life the way I see fit so I don't understand why you need validation.

As far as your doubt well no one can remove your doubts. That's also something you will have to work on privately.

is not therapy - albeit with a different philosophy. It is focuses on your angst - which what we supposedly were only doing - and it has suggestions about how you should live, think and feel.

Sometimes I think people shift to a meta-critique when the issue is really one of content and core beliefs.

Edit: I wouldn't say I disagree with what she said in the quote above. I think, however, it might miss the point that you want to learn from certain people. And their beliefs about how one learns are not necessarily something you can ignore. The parallel: going to a University to study a subject and believing that academic papers are not a good tool for learning. You can certainly believe this, but you will likely have to grit your teeth and do them. The kinds of dialogue we were talking about earlier in the thread may or may not be acceptable as part of the learning process with certain experts - ironically paralleling their not being acceptable here to some. My position is that they are acceptable to at least some experts. And, in a sense, I agree with lucysnow that you can accept your own belief (that these are necessary). That you can come to them to a greater extent on your own terms.

As we can both come here, also, on our own terms.

Of course as we are social creatures and not Ayn Randian monads, the issue is a complex one.

 

[Doreen]

How can a person be sure - before it is too late - that they have made the right decision about God?

How can a person be sure - before it is too late - that they have chosen the right path to seek God?

Thought I would come at the issue from another direction.

1) "before it is too late" - is an assumption that I associate most with certain parts of Christianity. Hinduism and Buddhism don't support such a conception, as far as I can. In a sense you are where you are and you will develop over time - (or potentially not, but still it does not become too late.) Islam, from the little I know of it, could support this idea of too late.

Even within Christianity I think there are a good many people who believe that simply being a good person is enough. A lot of focus is put on Jesus saying that the way to God is through him. But I have always felt that people's confidence in their interpretation of this statement is hilarious - and sad.

2) The epistemological problem is a pretty common one. If we look at relationships and ethical decisions in general, we often have to make decisions - often ones we cannot 'take back' - where it is impossible to be certain. Often intangibles would need to somehow be weighed to make the decision. And how do we prioritize values? And how to know what a good act is or how one comes to know what a good act is?

Here getting it right "before it too late" is a daily potential we can miss.

I don't know how one can be sure, in the kind of on paper abstract way of philosophical texts, one can be certain one is being moral - or intelligently behaving morally even if one's morals are 'correct.' (iow there are a couple of epistemological problems - 1) how do I know I have the right set of morals 2) how do I know I am applying them appropriately and intelligently.

(Implicit in the above is the notion of objective morals. Number 2 holds even if one does not believe in objective morals. And, in a sense, number 1 does also, but it shifts to 'how do I know what my values are?')

However much we wrestle with the issues around this, I think the idea of 'doing one's best' is generally accepted as a meta-position. We may be criticized for our morals and for how we apply them, but the meta-position of 'doing one's best' is, really, inescapable. As long as one does not use this to 1) use this as a mere excuse - thus, essentially, not doing one's best because no effort was made or there was little interest 2) avoid developing and learning - which again the meta-position takes care of.

Of course some people demand that one do better than one's best - not usually in that formulation. But that's just silly.

Once God and eternal damnation get put on the table, I understand that epistemological issues often can take on a panic-laden tenor, but.......

once God is on the table, I - note this is a conscious shift to the personal - cannot take all the responsibility. If 'doing my best' is not enough

I was made wrong.

If I was made wrong, and that is my essence, eternal damnation is my fate - if that kind of deity is the one running things.

So I have a certain kind of meta-position in relation to the universe. It goes something like

if doing my best is not enough, then I do not bear responsibility for solving the problem - with implications about what a loving or just universe or deity ought to do in such a situation. I could live as if the Demiurge is really God, but I cannot see how that would help me REGARDLESS of whether it is true or not.

I think some people - myself included - reach certainty in this way - though it may all be handled unconsciously.

So certainty shifts to a meta-position and/or a gut feeling. There is also a sense of this moment - including beliefs - is part of a process.


Another way to look at this is, I don't think the metaposition 'I cannot trust myself' is tenable. And I do not believe one can escape from having an implicit metaposition. It can often seem like

should I believe this or that (and right now I don't believe something)

but I don't think this is possible.

 

[wynn]

Yes, that's a fair quick summation. Especially given the form of this 'public' forum, where it is easy to stop reading posts that irritate one. As opposed to us speaking loudly at a restaurant. If we had gotten into your childhood and your dynamics with your parents or your romantic partner, etc., OK, I can begin to see the therapy accusation. I don't want to say that would have been wrong, but I think I would have shifted to private communication for that kind of thing.

I agree, and so would I.

Back at school, for example, we discussed moral and religious issues at classes, and we were expected to be able to talk about those things very openly.
I have also had this sort of conversations with usually Christian missionaries of various denominations in the open street, for example.
There is an aspect of philosophy and religiousness that in the culture where I come from, is not considered fully private.

Moreover, Lucysnow hereself linked to videos of Sam Keen, holding public speeches and seminars and talking about precisely such things.

Frankly I cannot see how......

is not therapy - albeit with a different philosophy. It is focuses on your angst - which what we supposedly were only doing - and it has suggestions about how you should live, think and feel.

Yes ...

Sometimes I think people shift to a meta-critique when the issue is really one of content and core beliefs.

Yes, it seems it happens around topics they find hot or problematic somehow. For example in threads on abortion, one can often read "Who are you to tell people what to do?" when the person at most said "I think that such and such is right/wrong", and not "People should ...". The meta-critic doesn't address the person's position, but the fact that they have one and that they stated it.

Edit: I wouldn't say I disagree with what she said in the quote above. I think, however, it might miss the point that you want to learn from certain people. And their beliefs about how one learns are not necessarily something you can ignore.

Yes. And these things are difficult to discuss without going into sometimes perhaps awkward personal details.

Lucy - and many other people - seemes to have somehow managed to settle for like what she presents in post 88, or that "At some point you have to stop musing, get quiet and come to terms with what you think god is and how you should honor that. No one can really help you with that at the end of the day, it will always be a lonely private process."

Frankly, I don't think she knows much about God. But I have to say that talking to her about God has been quite helpful, because it helped me focus on some things about God and about getting to know God that I had almost forgotten. Atheists can be helpful like that!

And, in a sense, I agree with lucysnow that you can accept your own belief (that these are necessary). That you can come to them to a greater extent on your own terms.

As we can both come here, also, on our own terms.

I think this is about free will, and how it plays into these things.

Of course as we are social creatures and not Ayn Randian monads, the issue is a complex one.

But who, be it in a dark or light hour, hasn't wished to be such a monad ...

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Moreover, Lucysnow hereself linked to videos of Sam Keen, holding public speeches and seminars and talking about precisely such things.
...

Signal: Frankly, I don't think she knows much about God.

I've told you that I no longer consider god, have no need for it. You nor anyone else can say they 'know' anything about this concept you call god save what others have written. You've referred to god as 'he'. Why is it not neuter? Why not a 'she'? Why ascribe any sex to a god at all? Keen has the wisdom to understand that mythology isn't literal and yet here you are trying to assign it a sex. What you claim to 'know' is no different than what Lori or Sandy or LG claims to somehow 'know'.

In that sense you suffer from the same conditioning as Sandy and Lori, convincing yourself that you somehow 'know' something, and yet here you are asking others to explain how they know what they know as you relate your doubts and fears on what you admittedly are not even sure of yourself

Which gets back to the question at hand of what I objected to in the discussion. As I have pointed out to you and you still seem to willfully ignore, I am not against discussions on this issue, it was your ongoing therapy session that I found to be a total bore and stalling a wider discussion. It simply comes across as self-absorbtion not inquiry. I mean if you need to be on the couch with Doreen schedule some sessions, I'm sure she will book you in

You also seem to forget that I'm an atheist. To spend an abundant amount of time 'knowing' god is the same as spending an enormous amount of time studying smurfs. Its the mythology that I find interesting in how it attempts to captivate wonder, the awe of life. So I'm interested in the wonderment of living but not in the dead crusty dogma people pass off as god knowledge.

As I posted to scifreak:

"Since all religions are structured ideologies of how one should live in the world, and how one should think of life in the world, based on traditional mythology there is no question of which one is wrong or right, they are neither. All mythologies and the religious beliefs that come out of them are imposed on reality, they are not reality itself so they are fictions but even a fiction can serve a purpose. They are all fictions designed to align people to themselves and the world around them which was the initial role of myth and some people evidently need this. Religions and ideas of god are culturally hinged, most people do not 'search' for religion but are born into a society that has these beliefs already built in. To say they are all frauds is to say there is a deception involved leading to benefits like power, control or monetary gain. These religions are only fraudulent if there is knowing deception, meaning that those who found and propagate the beliefs really do not believe in its veracity (like scientology). All religions will have aspects of fraud but that in itself doesn't discount its validity with those who are firm believers.

God on the other hand can be believed without adhering to any particular religion. For example I have met people who believe in god but do not belong to any organized or cult religion or particular belief system. They seem to think that 'god' exists out there 'somewhere'.

So take your pick: eeny meeny miny moe; its a smorgasbord and any one of them can fulfill your needs if you have a need for this particular kind of fix."

Pretty sums up my position.

You haven't answered my questions concerning your belief that you are other than your body, emotions, memories, values etc in post #104. If you go back a few posts you will see my questions.

Keen by the way didn't get up on a podium to angst over his doubts and complain about little old ladies at bus stops, he got up on the podium to confront the rigidity and arrogance of the so called 'religious' and refer to something less dogmatic. Maybe you should take a leaf from his book.

 

[wynn]

Thought I would come at the issue from another direction.

Yes, thank you. I see you have focused here on an irrefutable point, which is actually what I had been looking for with this thread (and some others).

Often intangibles would need to somehow be weighed to make the decision.

Exactly. And many theists and atheists speak as if they had weighed precisely these intangibles.

Here getting it right "before it too late" is a daily potential we can miss.

I don't know how one can be sure, in the kind of on paper abstract way of philosophical texts, one can be certain one is being moral - or intelligently behaving morally even if one's morals are 'correct.' (iow there are a couple of epistemological problems - 1) how do I know I have the right set of morals 2) how do I know I am applying them appropriately and intelligently.

It now seems to me this whole obsession with "getting it right" has to do with the desire not only to be certain, but to be able to sit back and relax, knowing one has done the right thing.
Relativism is not something we are able to be comfortable with, but the other extreme, that smug sitting back and relaxing in "I have done it right" goes against our nature as well, given that it is in our nature to be dependent living beings.

However much we wrestle with the issues around this, I think the idea of 'doing one's best' is generally accepted as a meta-position. We may be criticized for our morals and for how we apply them, but the meta-position of 'doing one's best' is, really, inescapable.

Actually, I have been thinking about this precisely for the past few days!

As long as one does not use this to 1) use this as a mere excuse - thus, essentially, not doing one's best because no effort was made or there was little interest 2) avoid developing and learning - which again the meta-position takes care of.

Agreed.

Of course some people demand that one do better than one's best - not usually in that formulation. But that's just silly.

Yes, isn't it?

Once God and eternal damnation get put on the table, I understand that epistemological issues often can take on a panic-laden tenor, but.......

once God is on the table, I - note this is a conscious shift to the personal - cannot take all the responsibility. If 'doing my best' is not enough

I was made wrong.

Exactly. But when this is pointed out to Christians, they tend to disagree.

If I was made wrong, and that is my essence, eternal damnation is my fate - if that kind of deity is the one running things.

Not that this is easy to live with.

So I have a certain kind of meta-position in relation to the universe. It goes something like

if doing my best is not enough, then I do not bear responsibility for solving the problem - with implications about what a loving or just universe or deity ought to do in such a situation. I could live as if the Demiurge is really God, but I cannot see how that would help me REGARDLESS of whether it is true or not.

I can relate to this. Another similar metaposition is "I have basically the same nature as God, because God created me. As long as I consistently make an effort to discover my true nature and live accordingly, I am in no danger from God."


I wonder how many theists came to their theistic conviction via the questions "Who am I? Who is God? What is my true nature, what is God's true nature?" Or whether they just wanted to be sit-back-and-relax kind of right.

Another way to look at this is, I don't think the metaposition 'I cannot trust myself' is tenable. And I do not believe one can escape from having an implicit metaposition. It can often seem like

should I believe this or that (and right now I don't believe something)

but I don't think this is possible.

I guess that "I cannot trust myself" is born out of the confusion about who one is, and as such is justified. It's not very helpful, but it is justified.

 

[wynn]

Keen has the wisdom to understand that mythology isn't literal and yet here you are trying to assign it a sex.

The reason I think discussions with atheists are interesting, up to a point, and why I engage in them, is to get an insight into various notions of certainty and of arriving at certainty.
So I poke at them, and so do some others. It's a practical exercise in the investigation of epistemology.

Also, discusisons with atheists are to me interesting from a meta-discursive view. I do not directly discuss something with them, even if it may look like that, but am after those things that are implied by the fact of discussing some particular topic.
As you yourself have readily noticed, since you stated "In that sense you suffer from the same conditioning as Sandy and Lori, convincing yourself that you somehow 'know' something, and yet you are the one here begging others to explain how they know what they know as you relate your doubts and fears on what you admittedly are not even sure of yourself".


But I am also aware that atheists could be doing the same thing to me!
I get a bit dizzy in the head from all this meta-meta-meta ...

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

You have completely ignored my post and the questions I put forth. Typical

But I get it. Its because you don't 'know' No end to the confusion of a doubtful monk

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Before you attempt an 'exercise in the investigation of epistemology', why don't you try and figure out what it is you believe first before you go about investigating what other's obviously already feel sure of?

You have no basis for investigation:shrug:

 

[wynn]

You have completely ignored my post and the questions I put forth. Typical

But I get it. Its because you don't 'know' No end to the confusion of a doubtful monk

What would you like from me? That I agree that all theism is merely mythology, a useful fabrication at best?
Do you want validation for your views, or what?

Before you attempt an 'exercise in the investigation of epistemology', why don't you try and figure out what it is you believe first before you go about investigating what other's obviously already feel sure of?

You have no basis for investigation

Yes and no.

It's more like this:

there is a basis, but it hasn't fully developed yet. It's a mere seedling. But it's not nothing either.
And seeds don't grow in a vacuum.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Oh it reminds me of the seedlings I just grew.

What do I want from you? LOL! Stop eating the mushrooms Signal this is sciforums. We are merely challenging each other's ideas. I asked you to explain your opinion that your 'self' is not made up of your body, ideas, emotions, values etc. If so what is 'it'? What is a person to you? What are you if stripped of your values, memories, emotions, body etc? You haven't experienced 'being' without any of those features.

Those were the questions.