Inner War

[s0meguy]

I used to be skeptical to everything unnatural and believed that most theists are theists because they aren't critical enough. Also, many theists I met and read about seemed to be very ignorant, naïve or just plain stupid.

But now I am confused... Ever since I have met certain people and read certain books (such as "The Alchemist"), there is a war going on and my mind is the battlefield...

There are 2 parties: my critical part which refuses to believe anything without scientific proof vs the part of me that does seek something unnatural, with the excuse that this world is just too beautiful to be a product of mere coincidence... plus it seeks an answer to the question of how this reality or dimension came to exist. But there are problems: there are so many religions and guess what: all of them claim that they are the truth. Now I spoke to people that told me to let my heart lead me. But my critical part won't allow this, because there are so many people that claim to have done the same, and they all came to different views and religions which basically means that all of them or atleast by far most of them are wrong. I'm stuck! I don't know what to think anymore.

There must've been other people before me. Please tell me about your experiences. Both atheists and theists are welcome. I need a clue or something.

 

[water]

I was stuck like that too, once.

Then, after much trouble,
I did it my way.

It's good.

 

[s0meguy]

What way are you speaking of, if I may ask?

 

[water]

I went through the whole shebang, so to speak. Investigated many religions, eventually settled for none.
Some of all this, you can see in my earlier posts here.

At some point, suffering and confusion brought me to my knees, and this is an experience that simplified my life greatly.


Bottomline, you have to realize that your life is about you, and that what you do, matters in your life.

And take your time. Be patient and kind with yourself.

 

[usp8riot]

Religion isn't necessarily a science, as in, this is the way the world works so believe it. Most religion is based on how you treat others. You don't have to necessarily believe in the scientific aspect of a religion, ie, if others interpret a part of a religion and say it's scientifically incorrect. Just look at the human to human aspect. If this is how I should treat my fellow brother/sister. Religion isn't an answer to how the world works but in most, a vague answer to how we should be and treat others. And if you feel in your heart, that a certain religion is the best answer you've found thus far pertaining to how we should treat ourselves and each other, then go with it. I know of no religion that is not exaggerated or glamorized to the point where it seems unbelievable on certain subjects but as imperfect man makes religion, so shall the religion have some exaggerations and glamorizations. No religion is %100 fact. Even atheists can't disprove a God. So what have they got going for them? No God, no rules, no foundation, nothing. In the end, believing in nothing, what do you gain? Nothing. But believing in a religion of hope for your fellow man, you gain a lot more than nothing. So take your pick.

 

[duendy]

i think yu have to use reson andintuition to examine mythology and belief systems including the present secular one

Most people dont realize our current 'atiest' 'scientific' beliefs may also be myth....thus we get te 'science vs 'religion' game. a struggle you seem to say you grow thru

take te scientific myth tat all of tis amzaing experience, Earthm universe etc is 'accidental'
well that doesn't feel right at all, as i hear you feel

then patriarchal religious beliefs jump in and claim that their 'God' is behind it all. but you se these beliefsin conflict with eac othe, in history and now. and whats all THAT about?? plus you see the contradictions in their scripts and behaviour nd so on

and we get this game called 'evolution vs creationism goin on........

so let me point you to deeper meaning behind tis. thi isn't to turn you onto a 'religion' of course, bt to just see what you tink..

www.deepspirit.com and open link 'Jesus or Darwin?'.....wanna play? read it and lt me know your reaction to it...?

you donthave to of course

 

[duendy]

if you click on 'MINDBYTES' you'll find the article

 

[Lerxst]

s0meguy:

I know EXACTLY what you are going through, your first post reads exactly like something I might say. You are not alone.

I have a book recommendation for you - a philosophy book by a brilliant mathematical/scientific/philosophical polymath, Martin Gardner, a huge personal hero of mine. He explores these same kinds of issues with much intelligence and care. Reading his book was a profound experience for me. It may not have answered a lot of questions, but it brought them into sharper focus for me.

LINK

 

[s0meguy]

Thanks Water, and everyone else that took the effort to give me some advise.

usp8riot: As I tried to explain, my mind could never find peace in something potentially untrue.

Duendy: Nice theory and it answers some questions, but questions remain such as: why and how did this intelligence come into existence? There may be some truth in this philosophy, but there are flaws.

Lerxt: Thanks, I will read the book and perhaps we can have a conversation about it afterwards.

 

[s0meguy]

...but questions remain such as: why and how did this intelligence come into existence?

New question: How did this 'thing' that created intelligence come into existence? This could go on forever. Conclusion: There is no possible answer to the question. Conclusion: God cannot exist?

 

[wesmorris]

If you indeed conclude that loop goes on forever;

Conclusion: God is unknowable and as such, irrelevant.

Unless of course, you think it is...

Then you must conclude that the loop stops at the decision "god has always been and did not need a creator" - which IMO, can only be distinquished from the other possiblities via your feeling about the topic.

Or you could decide cause and effect is paramount, so god must have a creator.

At that point you could make up all kinds of schemes to describe the hierarchy of gods.

Or you could conclude the concept of god is irrational and since irrational things don't exist, neither does god.

Personally, "necessarily inconclusive" seems like the only fair choice.

 

[usp8riot]

Well, if you are looking for a religion that is 100% cohesive with science, then you, my friend, are screwed. And a science 100% cohesive with religion, fuhgedaboudit. Go with a modern religion that someone just made up lately if it's suppose to be in parallel with the latest scientific models. Or else it just won't happen. If you really are in doubt, no big deal. But I just theorized for myself since no one would tell me the answers. I would say my answers come from God since he did give me my reasoning ability but people would hold you to be "special" when we all get our answers that way. But yes, s0meguy, who created the creator and who created the creators creator can obviously go on for infiinity and ultimately that becomes your religion, finding the answer to that, what you keep searching for all your life to no avail. As is science, does man think he can honestly find a stopping point and then find the answer to all lifes questions and find God himself at the end of the road of it? You can go on for infinity. Science becomes your religion if you see no end to it and keep searching through science. A wise man clearly sees ahead that it will never reveal all in an infinite universe with finite human lives. As I have related this to religion many a time but worded differnt, the problem of pi. If you're foolish, solving it becomes your religion and if you're wise, you see it is or can go on infinitely and you are farther ahead by being farther behind in it. And therefore, you make use of your life while the foolish man spends his time on an unsolvable problem.

 

[s0meguy]

Well, if you are looking for a religion that is 100% cohesive with science, then you, my friend, are screwed.

I never said that. I am just looking for answers.

But I just theorized for myself since no one would tell me the answers. I would say my answers come from God since he did give me my reasoning ability

I didn't look at it that way yet. Perhaps you are right and if there is something out there one must truly follow his intuition in order to find it or... there can be no way of finding it.

but people would hold you to be "special" when we all get our answers that way.

The obvious solution to that would be that those people don't truly follow their intuition...

And therefore, you make use of your life while the foolish man spends his time on an unsolvable problem.

Then, what does "making use of your life" mean for you? And for everyone else for that matter? (if you're going to say something along the lines of "to be happy", please tell us what the word happy means for you)

Personally, "necessarily inconclusive" seems like the only fair choice.

As far as logic goes that is...

 

[usp8riot]

Then, what does "making use of your life" mean for you?

Well, to serve others, quite simply. To try to help them live a happier life and if I have something which I think is good for them and make them happy, to share it. Even if it is my religion, which is pretty much a combination of all the Abrahamic religions combined. And if you have a religion that makes you happy and want to share it with others and try to help them find satisfaction and a sense of worth in life, then I commend it.
We all want to seek approval for our actions and know for sure if it is the right thing to do. I believe that is built in to us. Why do morals seem right? Because as reasonable human beings, we sense that is the best way to go about things in which it causes less harm to society as a whole. Reason=morals. That's what separates us from the lesser intelligent life forms. I use my reasoning to judge what I believe in and what is ultimately the most ideal way to go about everyday problems. And the religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all tie in to my beliefs of morality. So I looked at them from an analytical standpoint and tried to discredit the scientific aspect of each and to some avail at times to keep me at bay but ultimately I see hardly any discrepancies in those religions to defer my beliefs in them. And who's to say you can believe only one religion? One is fine, but if you feel another to be the true word of God according to you also, then so be it, that is your beliefs. If you have any specific questions pertaining to the scientific aspect of those religions, ask me and I'll give you my opinion.

 

[Adstar]

Well, if you are looking for a religion that is 100% cohesive with science, then you, my friend, are screwed. And a science 100% cohesive with religion, fuhgedaboudit. Go with a modern religion that someone just made up lately if it's suppose to be in parallel with the latest scientific models.

A modern Religion that is in parallel with the latest scientific models will only survive as long as those models are accepted as scientific fact. So going with that religion would be pointless and doomed to failure.

The problem with some people when seeking God is that they will not believe anything until they understand everything.

Of course no one (and that includes people who spend all their lives studying scriptures) understands everything. So waiting until you know everything before believing anything means you will never believe.

The progression of Faith in God comes from a series of small steps of belief. As one believes in a small thing then one is open to progress to understand and believe in deeper things. This progress continues until one reaches the limit of ones ability to understand. But always along the progression Trust/Faith is needed in a percentage of Belief. As you go the proportion that needs trust becomes less but the need to trust never totally diminishes. There will always be areas in ones relationship with God where Trust/Faith in needed. Always areas that one lacks understanding.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[water]

God is unknowable

To say this, with qualification, requires that one knows God. Mind you. Your proposition is paradoxical.



The crux is basically this: Theists (or atheists) propose a certain claim about God. Then one finds oneself with one of these three responses to this claim:
agreement,
disagreement,
and
bewilderment.

Now, if one wants to preserve one's integrity, one will want to either agree or disagree on a sound basis, with qualification and not simply based on a hunch or quick overview research.

But as empirical evidence is inherently relativistic (and so all empiristic claims of the atheists are inherently relativistic as well, and thus not reliable),
and God's actions are up to God (and God may do something, or not, and just because God doesn't do something on terms we understand as being done by God doesn't mean God doesn't act),
one cannot answer to the theistic or atheistic claims with a qualified yes or a qualified no.

So one is left with bewilderment.
The wisdom is then in how to approach this bewilderment.

 

[scorpius]

There are 2 parties: my critical part which refuses to believe anything without scientific proof vs the part of me that does seek something unnatural,

everything that exist is NATURAL,even if there was something unexplained it would still be natural dont you think?

with the excuse that this world is just too beautiful to be a product of mere coincidence...

what about the UGLY parts such as huricanes,tornadoes,tsunami waves,poisonous snakes,mosquitoes ,deadly dieases etc.etc..
why is it that religious people atribute all the nice things to gods while overlooking the bad ...or blaming some kind of devil thing for it...?

Please tell me about your experiences. Both atheists and theists are welcome. I need a clue or something.

the universe just exist and its pretty much indifferent to your feelings...

 

[usp8riot]

A modern Religion that is in parallel with the latest scientific models will only survive as long as those models are accepted as scientific fact. So going with that religion would be pointless and doomed to failure.

Of course, I was only hinting to atheists that a religion that's 100% cohesive with the latest scientific theories won't be the same religion for long.

why is it that religious people atribute all the nice things to gods while overlooking the bad ...or blaming some kind of devil thing for it...?

I don't believe that's God or satan doing that. We can all see how we directly influence the earth, and indirectly for the most part. Volcanoes, hurricanes, earthquakes have to happen in order for the earth to maintain itself. Scientists don't attribute that to God but because volcanoes have magma which needs to be released and it in turn, replenishes the planet. With hurricanes, it just happens due to the nature of the planet. Earthquakes as we all know is our dynamic earth shifting. Who's to say God does this? I believe it's what He started but the earth was born and I believe it goes on under God's witness, not being interfered with God. He tells us things to warn us of what will happen if we don't in the nature of the world. Natural events don't happen because it's God directly punishing us.

the universe just exist and its pretty much indifferent to your feelings...

Wrong, what people believe makes them act. And as mentioned before, most scientists with a decent IQ can see how we directly and indirectly affect the earth. If people had a respect for the creator of the earth, they would more than likely respect the earth more and cut down on the pollution and excessive waste and want which would make for a healthier atmosphere, therefore a healthier body and a healthier mind.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Hi someguy,

I used to be skeptical to everything unnatural...

Probably because the 'unnatural' doesn't appear to exist.

There are 2 parties: my critical part which refuses to believe anything without scientific proof vs the part of me that does seek something unnatural, with the excuse that this world is just too beautiful to be a product of mere coincidence...

I suspect that ideas and physical phenomenoa are being found attractive and attraction is entertwined with the emotional center. Its human nature to embrace the attractive, even if attractive ideas aren't truth.

Consquently, thinking in terms of coincidence is another aspect of human thinking... anthropomorphizing outcomes. It's a subjective interpretation.

...plus it seeks an answer to the question of how this reality or dimension came to exist.

This is a problem that lots of people stumble on. The desire to have that answer is so strong that people are willing to say 'God did it' instead of 'I dont know' and taking the opportunity to figure it out.

But there are problems: there are so many religions and guess what: all of them claim that they are the truth. Now I spoke to people that told me to let my heart lead me. But my critical part won't allow this, because there are so many people that claim to have done the same, and they all came to different views and religions which basically means that all of them or atleast by far most of them are wrong. I'm stuck! I don't know what to think anymore.

The advice of 'letting your heart show you the way' is 100% equivelant to saying 'let your emotional center decide what is true rather than evidence'. It's an antiquated way of thinking.

There must've been other people before me. Please tell me about your experiences. Both atheists and theists are welcome. I need a clue or something.

IMO, the problem here is that evidence-base thinking does nothing to promote your emotional health. I might suggest learning how to have a good relationship with yourself (IMO, the intense euphoria of people having relationships with 'God' is really nothing more than ego-relationships) and learning how to have good relationships with others (find some passionate common ground with a group).

 

[wesmorris]

To say this, with qualification, requires that one knows God. Mind you. Your proposition is paradoxical.

The statement is paradoxical taken out of context, I'd agree.

But in the context of "god leads to an infinite recursive loop" as I put forth in response to an obvious consequence of the OP's analysis, saying "an infinite recursive loop" doesn't lead a a conclusion is what I meant by "god is unknowable".

The crux is basically this: Theists (or atheists) propose a certain claim about God. Then one finds oneself with one of these three responses to this claim:
agreement,
disagreement,
and
bewilderment.

So you equate "bewilderment" with "inconclusive"? Close enough I suppose.

Now, if one wants to preserve one's integrity, one will want to either agree or disagree on a sound basis, with qualification and not simply based on a hunch or quick overview research.

So you're saying my analysis lacks integrity? I'm confused.

But as empirical evidence is inherently relativistic (and so all empiristic claims of the atheists are inherently relativistic as well, and thus not reliable),
and God's actions are up to God (and God may do something, or not, and just because God doesn't do something on terms we understand as being done by God doesn't mean God doesn't act),
one cannot answer to the theistic or atheistic claims with a qualified yes or a qualified no.

So one is left with bewilderment.
The wisdom is then in how to approach this bewilderment.

I call it "necessarily inconclusive", but yeah.. .that's what we're left with. And if "god" is necessarily inconclusive, the saying "god is unknowable" seems like a nice short-hand way of cutting through the muck, though perhaps "god's ontological status is necessarily inconclusive because attempting to define 'god' always leads to infinite recursive loops" is a better way of saying it.